Full text of "Initial Study of the Former Kingston Coal Gasification Plant Site"

See other formats

BBS 4?tF-

INITIAL STUDY OF THE

FORMER KINGSTON

ODAL GASIFICATION PLANT SITE

INTtREv

Inlera Technologies Ltd Telephone (613) 728-61 1 1

1525 Carling Avenue Telex: 053-3935

Suite 600 Telecopier (613) 728-4009

Ottawa. Ontario
Canada K1Z8R9

bbs 49:?-

INITIAL STUDY OF 'DIE

FORMER KINGSTON

OOAL GASIFICATION PLANT SITE

Prepared by

Intera Technologies Ltd.
Ottawa, Ontario

Prepared for

Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Waste Management Branch

FINAL REPORT
H88-026

July 27, 1988

1988 - Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the
Minister of the Environment

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared for the Ministry of the Environment
as part of a Ministry funded project. The views and ideas expressed in
this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the Ministry of the Environment, nor does the
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use. Any Person who wishes to republish part or all
of this report should apply for permission to do so to the Waste
Management Branch, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 135 St. Clair
Avenue West, Toronto, Ontario M4V 1P5 Canada.

iisnuuv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Initial site investigations of the former Kingston Coal
Gasification Plant located in the blocks bounded by Queen, Ontario,
Place D'Armes and King Streets in Kingston have been completed to
determine if potentially hazardous wastes remain on-site and if
present, to determine how the wastes occur on the site and whether or
not the wastes are impacting on human health and/or the environment.

The site investigations were completed in three phases.
Phase 1 studies were reconnaissance level investigations including a
historical review, a ground probing radar survey, and soil and soil gas
sampling designed to identify historical waste storage locations and to
assist in planning subsequent phases. Phase 2 studies provided a more
in depth investigation of the nature and extent of on-site
contamination. These studies included: drilling; soil sampling;
monitoring well installation; groundwater sampling; surface water and
sediment sampling; and utility line and building sump inspections. The
Phase 3 component provided documentation of the methodologies and
results with interpretations, an environmental impact assessment and
recommendations based on the results.

The Kingston Gas Plant was in operation from 1848 to the
early 1950s. Curing its operation the gas generating method changed
from a coal gasification, to a water gas to a carburetted water gas
process. Because of the changes in processes, some of the gas plant
and waste storage facilities changed locations several times and
therefore locations of contaminated areas are not predictable.

Presently the former gas plant property is occupied by the
Kingston Public Utilities bus garages and offices, the Kingston police
station and several commercial businesses. In some cases, the original
gas plant buildings (i.e., purifier house and gas holder house) remain
on-site and are in use while in other cases the structures (i.e., gas

INTERS^

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (cont'd)

holding tank and coal shed) have been demolished and replaced with
buildings. Evidence of some of the waste storage locations (i.e., gas
holding tanks) are still apparent on the property.

Site investigations have identified fill and clay overburden
overlying bedrock to be thin and relatively free of evidence of coal
tar wastes. Coal tar was, however, found in fill material north of the
electrical substation and on top of the former main gas holder on the
corner of King and Place D'Armes Streets. The limestone bedrock was
found to contain free coal tar and contaminated groundwater in four
test holes drilled on-site and one test hole drilled off-site. Coal
tar was primarily found within fractures and bedding planes in the
bedrock at depths of about 3 to 12 metres below surface.

Shallow groundwater in the area of the former gas plant is
affected by man-made structures and activities. The building sump in
the police station basement is the low point in the groundwater system
and groundwater surrounding the police station flows to, and is
collected by the sump. The groundwater flow directions may also be
affected by the sanitary trunk sewer which runs along Ontario and Place
D'Armes Streets at a depth of about 6 metres below surface.

The groundwater in the area of the former gas plant was found
to be contaminated with coal tar products. High concentrations of
light aromatic hydrocarbons, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and
phenols which are not normally found in groundwater were found in five
of the six monitoring wells that were sampled. Concentrations of
phenols (i.e., 2 to 430 ppb) and benzene (i.e., 130 to 65000 ppb) , for
example, exceed MOE drinking water objectives and water quality
objectives. Groundwater, entering the sump of the police station,
contains low levels of PAH as well. The coal tar and contaminated

INTtRBv

Ill

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (cont'd)

groundwater in the bedrock does not appear to have an impact on the
surface water and sediment quality in Anglin Bay or Lake Ontario. PAH
were not detected in surface water samples and only low levels of PAH
which are considered to be background levels, were found in the
sediments of Anglin Bay.

The extent of contamination includes the entire two block
area of the former gas plant and some of the area north of King and
Place D'Armes Streets. Contamination probably extends off of the gas
plant property but additional work may be required to define the off-
property extent of contamination.

The contaminated zones are largely confined under at least
1.5 m of soil in the bedrock and this acts to prevent direct contact
with the hazardous material. Similarly air quality impacts are
negligible because the waste is not exposed at surface. Cdours
associated with the police station sump are evident only when the cover
is removed but the impact on ambient air quality is considered to be
of low concern with the cover in place. The groundwater in the area is
highly contaminated but is of low concern because the groundwater is
not used as a water supply. The coal tar and contaminated groundwater
appear to have little environmental impact on surface waters based on
the limited samplings of this initial investigation. It is possible
that free coal tar and/or contaminated groundwater is discharging to
Anglin Bay or Lake Ontario through the bedrock although dilution along
the pathway may be sufficient to reduce the concentration sufficiently
to result in an immeasurable impact.

INTUUi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF FIGURES vi

LIST OF TABLES viii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1

1.1 Study Objectives 1

1.2 Study Scope 2

1.3 Site Description 3

1.4 Chemistry, Environmental Behaviour and Health Effects

of Coal Tar Wastes 9

2. FIELD INVESTIGATIONS 16

2.1 Phase 1 - Preliminary Investigations 16

2.1.1 Historical Review 16

2.1.2 Ground Probing Radar 17

2.1.3 Soil Sampling 21

2.1.4 Soil Gas Sampling 22

2.2 Phase 2 - Drilling and Sampling Program 26

2.2.1 Air Monitoring 26

2.2.2 Health and Safety Plan 27

2.2.2.1 Air Monitoring 28

2.2.2.2 Eguipment Decontamination 28

2.2.2.3 Waste Material Handling 28

2.2.3 Drilling Locations 28

2.2.4 Drilling and Soil Sampling 29

2.2.5 Surface Water and Sediment Samples 31

2.2.6 Monitoring Well Installation and Sampling

2.2.7 Utility Line and Sump Inspections

3. INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS 42

3.1 Historical Review 42

3.1.1 Gas Plant History 42

3.1.2 Gas Plant Operation 42

3.2 Site Geology 47

3.2.1 Regional Geology 47

3.2.2 Local Geology 50

3.3 Site Hydrogeology 51

3.3.1 Groundwater System 57

3.3.2 Groundwater Quality 60

3.3.3 Sediment and Surface Water Quality 66

3.3.4 Building Sump Quality 69

INTtRk

3.4

3.4.1
3.4.2

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)

Waste Source Areas

Waste Source Identification
Extent of Contamination

ENVTRDNMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

RECOMMENDATIONS

REFERENCES

Page

71
71
75

APPENDIX A Terms of Reference

APPENDIX B Ground Probing Radar Survey

APPENDIX C Borehole Logs and Monitoring Well Completion
Details

APPENDIX D Sediment and Surface Water Analytical Results

APPENDIX E Groundwater Analytical Results

intird^

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1.1 City of Kingston, Showing Location of Former

Gas Works 4

Figure 1.2 Site Plan of the Gas Plant Study Area 5

Figure 1.3 1908 Fire Insurance Plan of the Kingston Gas Plant 7

Figure 1.4 1924 Fire Insurance Plan of the Kingston Gas Plant 8

Figure 2.1 Schematic of a Ground Probing Radar System 18

Figure 2.2 Site Map Showing Location of Ground Probing

Radar Survey Lines 19

Figure 2.3 Kingston, Line No. 1, Ground Probing Radar Survey 20

Figure 2.4 Locations of Shallow Soil and Soil Gas Sampling 23

Figure 2.5 Drilling and Monitoring Well Locations 30

Figure 2.6 Surface Water and Sediment Sampling Locations 32

Figure 2.7 Utility Line and Sump Inspections 41

Figure 3.1 Comparison of 1908 Gas Plant Buildings to the

Present Site Buildings 44

Figure 3.2 Comparison of 1924 Gas Plant Buildings to the

Present Site Buildings 45

Figure 3.3 Stratigraphic Column - Kingston /Area 48

Figure 3.4 Geologic Cross Section in an East-West Direction 51

Figure 3.5 Geologic Cross Section in a North-South Direction 52

Figure 3.6 Bedrock Surface Contour Map 54

Figure 3.7 Major Joint Sets in the Paleozoic Bedrock in the

Kingston Area 56

Figure 3.8 Water Levels in mASL at the Kingston Gas Plant 58

INTtRSi

Vll

LIST OF FIGURES (cont'd)

Page

Figure 3.9 Groundwater Quality Results at the Kingston Gas

Plant 61

Figure 3 . 10 Potential Waste Source Locations 73

Figure 3.11 Extent of Contamination 76

Figure 5.1 Recommended Borehole, Sediment Sampling and

Surface Water Sampling Locations 83

IMTTRN

Vlll

LIST OF TABUS

Page

Table 1.1 Physical and Chemical Properties of Typical Coal
Tar Constituents

Table 1.2 Carcinogenic Activity of Some Unsubstituted
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (ERT, 1983)

Table 2.1 Kingston Soil Gas Concentrations 25

Table 2.2 Summary of Well Installation Details 34

Table 2.3 Summary of Hydraulic Conductivity Tests Results

for the Former Kingston Gas Plant 36

Table 2.4 Hydrochemistry Parameters 37

Table 2.5 Water Level Record Sheet 39

Table 3.1 Concentration of Volatile Priority Pollutants

in Water 63

Table 3.2 Concentration of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

in Water 65

Table 3.3 Analytical Results for Sediment Samples 67

Table 3.4 Analytical Results for Surface Water Samples 68

Table 3.5 Analytical Results for Building Sump Samples 70

INTERN

1. IfrTCTODUCTTON AND background

In response to the discovery of manufactured gas plant wastes
in several communities in Ontario in 1986, the Ontario Ministry of the
Environment (MOE) commissioned a study to identify and assess the
potential environmental impact of former manufactured gas plant waste
sites in the Province of Ontario. This study, "Inventory of Coal
Gasification Plant Waste Sites in Ontario", was completed in April 1987
by Intera Technologies Ltd. (INTERA) and identified 41 manufactured gas
plants in 36 different communities.

At a number of these sites identified in the study, little
or nothing was known about the fate of waste materials that were
produced in the gasification process. In order to provide information
on the occurrence of waste material on-site and the potential for
environmental impact, the MOE contracted Intera Technologies Ltd. to
perform initial site investigations at the former Kingston Coal Gas
Plant.

This report documents the methodology, results,
interpretations and reccrrroandations that were derived frcsr, these
initial investigations.

1.1 STUDY OBJECTIVES

As stated in the terms of reference (Appendix A) the
objectives of the study were:

i) determine whether or not coal gasification plant wastes
are present;

ii) if present, determine how these wastes occur on-site (in
storage tanks, in soil, etc.), and obtain some
indication of their distribution;

INTEJ^

iii) if present, determine whether the wastes are contained,
or whether the wastes, or contaminated water, or both,
may be moving off-site;

iv) if present, determine whether or not the wastes are
impacting on, or pose an imminent threat of impact on,
human health and safety, or the environment, or both.

In addition to these general objectives, the following
objective relates specifically to the Kingston site:

• What is the type and extent of the tar contamination
that was found in a sewer excavation in 1986 on
King Street north of Place d'Armes Street? Is
contamination from this area likely to reach
Lake Ontario.

1.2 STUDY SCOPE

To satisfy the study objectives, a three phase work plan was
developed.

Phase 1 work was designed to identify buried waste sources
and to provide a preliminary indication of the distribution of on-site
waste. Phase 1 activities involved performing a review of existing
information including a historical review of waste storage locations.
Using the historical evidence, a ground probing radar survey was
carried out to confirm and identify gas plant structures. Soil
sampling, using a hand auger, and soil gas sampling, using a portable
organic vapour meter/gas chromatograph, were used to probe the shallow
ground surface for evidence of waste. Waste was detected on-site and
therefore Phase 2 studies were designed to define the extent of the
waste and to determine if the waste, contaminated groundwater or air
were migrating off-site or creating an environmental impact.

INTtJUi

The Phase 2 studies were conducted using an air monitoring
program and a health and safety program. Each of the potentially
contaminated areas identified in Phase 1 were investigated using a
drilling program and soil/rock sampling program. Groundwater
contamination was investigated in a monitoring well installation and
sampling program and surface water was studied by sampling of the water
and sediments in adjacent water bodies. Finally, all on-site utility
lines and building sumps were visually inspected for gas plant wastes.

The Phase 3 component of the study included the reporting and
documentation of the methodology, results, interpretations and
recommendations of the site investigations.

1.3 SITE DESCRIPTION

"The Kingston gas works operated for over 100 years from 1848
to 1957 on a 1.6 hectare site located north and south of Barrack Street
between King Street East and Ontario Street, and Queen Street and Place
D'Armes Street (Figure 1.1) . The main gas works was established south
of Barrack Street and auxiliary gas holders were situated north of
Barrack Street. The gas works was a retort coal gasification facility,
a carburetted water gas facility and finally a propane air gas plant.
The Kingston Public Utilities Commission (PUC) assumed operation of the
gas works in 1913" (INTERA, 1987) .

"The main gas works site (Figure 1.2) is now occupied by the
PUC bus repair garage, parking lot, and office, the Kingston police
underground parking garage, a Kingston Hydro substation, and retail
stores. The auxiliary gas holding area is now occupied by the PUC bus
transit garage and parking lot. Both properties are located in
uncontrolled-access, public use areas. The former gas works site is
located about 150 m southwest of the mouth of the Great Cataragui
River. The river has recreational use" (INTERA, 1987) .

IISfTLRA

KING STREET

PAIR GARAGE

!■,

PAITJT SHOP

KINGSTOtJ POLICE 8L0G

ONTARIO STREET

FORT FRONTENAC

INTLRiS Technologies

FORMER GAS PLANT - KINGSTON
Site Plan of the Gas Plant Study Area

Figure 1.2

Historical maps for the gas plant site identify a number of
potential waste storage locations which are of primary interest to this
study. For the Kingston site, there were two different layouts. Ihe
first layout from historical maps of 1908 and 1911 is shown in
Figure 1.3 and the second plan from 1924 is shown in Figure 1.4. The
basic differences include changes in the locations of the relief gas
holders and in the location of the purifier house. These changes in
plant layout complicate the identification of waste storage containers
because gas plant structures existed in different locations for
different time periods. Therefore wastes may be found in several
different locations on the plant site.

Normal operating procedures of gas plants usually result in
waste material being located in the area of certain gas pi
structures. For identification purposes, the following structures and
their potential wastes are labelled by number on the two plant layouts
(i.e., Figure 1.3 and 1.4):

1. Generator House - used to make gas in a retort. Waste
may be found in sumps.

2. Oil tank - used for storage of oil (Bunker C) for water
gas process or may have been used for tar storage;

3. Relief gas holding tank - used to store raw gas. Waste,
consisting of tar sludges, may be found at the base of
the tank and in its sump;

4. Condensor House - contained equipment to condense tars,
oils and liquors from hot gases. Tar wells were usually
proximate to this operation;

5. Purifier House - contains equipment to scrub raw gas to
remove tars. May contain oxide box wastes. Tar wells
and tar dehydrators are usually found beneath the
purifier house;

INTtASi

Drown by

Ovacfcad by

Revi»)one

Dot*

Ckrt.

Dot*

I NTLRA Technologies

A/!3^n &

1908 FIRE INSURANCE PLAN OF THE KINGSTON
GAS PLANT (see text for description)

FIGURE 1.3

6. Main gas holding tank - used to store pure gas prior to
distribution. May contain tar sludges on the base of the
tank;

7. Meter House - used to regulate gas flow to consumers.
No waste are associated with the meter house but tars may
be found in the pipelines;

8. Coal Shed - used to store coal and coke. May contain
spent coal, cinders and coal dust;

9. Oxide Room - storage of new or spent oxide (not found on
1908 map) .

A detailed discussion of the actual wastes believed to be on-
site, based on the results of field investigations, is found in
Section 3.4.

1.4 GENERAL CHEMISTRY, ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOUR AND HEALTH EFFECTS
OF TAR WASTES

This section provides a brief discussion of the chemistry,
environmental behaviour and health effects of tar wastes, to provide
background information on the environmental fate and potential hazard
posed by tar wastes generated by gas plants. Other types of wastes,
such as spent oxide, ammonia liguor, cinders, slag and ash are also
generated by gas plants but are considered to be of less importance
from an environmental point of view as compared to tar wastes. The
interested reader is directed to ERT (1984) for more detailed
information on both tar and inorganic wastes from gas plants.

Coal tars and oil tars are all generated by the incomplete
combustion of carbon based materials (i.e., coal, coke, oil) and the
recovery and condensation of the gaseous products of such combustion.
As such the coal and oil tars associated with coal gasification plants
have generally similar physical and chemical characteristics and
therefore similar environmental behaviour and health effects. The
chemical and physical properties of a particular tar will be

INTUIT

determined from the type of raw materials, the temperature and type of
combustion and the efficiency of condensing, exhausting and purifying
operations.

The major organic chemicals associated with coal and oil tars
that may pose an environmental concern are:

• Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) ;

• Phenol ics;

• Light Aromatics (e.g., benzene, toluene, xylenes).

These compounds are present in tars, sludges and liquors
derived from coal. Table 1.1 shows the physical and chemical
properties of typical coal tar constituents and the typical chemical
composition of a coal tar. Oil and water gas tars are generally
similar to coal tars but contain smaller amounts of nitrogenous PAH,
benzene, toluene, anthracene and phenol and larger amounts of
naphthalenes (Rogers, 1926) .

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons are compounds consisting of
two or more fused benzene rings. The physical and chemical properties
of PAH are dependent on the structure of individual compounds. The
aqueous solubility and volatility of each compound decreases as the
molecular weight of the compound increases. Therefore those compounds
with a simple structure have higher solubilities and volatilities than
those with a complicated structure. In general, PAH are strongly
adsorbed and immobilized in soils and are also susceptible to
biodegradation by microorganisms. Table 1.1 also lists the logarithm
of the octanol-water partitioning coefficient, K w, which is a measure
of the partitioning of coal tar constituents between the water and
soil. Larger K w values indicate a greater affinity for adsorption.
As a result of these properties, PAH tend to be relatively immobile in
the environment. However, the fact that they occur in tars and that
tars can migrate as immiscible, heavier-than-water or lighter-than-

INTtASv

water phases increases their mobility and potential environmental
impact.

Light aromatics (i.e., monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, such
as benzene, xylene and toluene) are moderately soluble, and
biodegradable with high volatility and low sorption. They are
expected to be relatively mobile in groundwater systems. However, the
presence of these compounds will be largely determined by their
volatility.

Phenolics (e.g., phenol, cresol and xylenol) are highly
soluble with low sorption and high biodegradability and therefore are
expected to be highly mobile in groundwater.

The environmental impact and risk associated with tars and
tar wastes are derived from exposure and/or contact with polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons and light aromatic hydrocarbons. The
environmental impact from these substances results in adverse effects
on human health and aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. The roost
adverse effect associated with PAH and light aromatic hydrocarbons, is
the increased incidence of cancer (ERT, 1984) . Health effects
associated with PAH are documented in the literature because of their
ubiquitous presence in the environment. PAH are found in polluted air,
tobacco smoke, cooking products, soots, tars, and oils. PAH are formed
in a variety of hydrocarbon combustion processes routinely exposing
most people to very low levels of PAH. In general, PAH are a large
group of chemicals of which only a few have been suitably tested with
respect to human health effects. The major routes of PAH adsorption
are through inhalation and cutaneous exposure (Occupational Health
Program, McMaster University, 1986) .

IMTH^

Table 1.1 Physical and Chemical Properties of Typical Coal
Tar Constituents

Const i tuent

Formula

Molecular
Veiqht

Aqjcoos
Solubility
(mq/l)

loq

"■rw

PAH

Naphthalene

C10H8

128.16

Jl.7»

5.37

Acenaphthylene

C12H8

152.21

5.95

Acenaphthene

C12H10

154.21

3.931

4.358

f luorene

C15H10

166.21

1.981

4.125

Anthracene

CUH10

178.22

0.0731

4.45

Phcnanthrene

C14H10

178.22

1.291

4.46

T luoranthene

C16H10

202.26

0.261

Pyrene

C16H10

202.24

0.1351

4.885

1,2-Benzoanthraccne

C18H12

228.28

0.0141

5.617

Chrysene

C18H12

228.28

0.0021

5.617

Benzo(a)pyrene

C20H12

252.50

0.00381

6.047

5, 4 -Bcnzof luoranthene

C20H10

252.32

0.00152

6.78

8enzo(qhi Jperylene

C22H12

276.54

0.000261

7.25

Indeno(l,2, 3-cd)pyrene

C22H12

276.34

0.00022

Dibenz(a,h )anthracene

C22H1A

278.00

0.0005*

5.978

Llaht Arometic3

Benzene

C6H6

78.11

1780.'

2.13

Toluene

C7H8

92.13

538. }

2.69

Ethylbenzcne

C8H10

106.16

159. 5

3.15

Phenolics

Phenol

C6H50H

94.

82000. 6

1.46

Heta-Cresol

CHjC6H50H

109.

23500. 6

1.98

Notes: l Oata from Hackay and Shiu (1977)
2 Oata from N8S (1981)
5 Oata from KcAuliffe (1963)

4 Oata from Pearlman et al. (1983)

5 Data from Lyman et al. (1982)

6 Oata from Verschueren (1983)

7 Oata from USEPA (1980)

8 Oata from Versar (1979)

The carcinogenic activity of various PAH is given in
Table 1.2 from ERT (1983). In general, the toxicity of PAH in various
species increases as the molecular weight of the compound increases.
This effect is tempered somewhat by differences in solubility in that
heavier compounds are less soluble, and therefore, less mobile in
agueous environments. PAH are noted to bioaccumulate in animal tissue
of aguatic organisms and also are accumulated by adsorption in plants.
The adsorption tends to be onto root surfaces as opposed to into the
plant structure and, therefore, does not accumulate in the plant
itself.

Single ringed, light aromatic hydrocarbons found in coal, and
oil tars generally consist of the toxic compounds benzene, toluene,
xylene and ethylbenzene . Of these compounds, benzene is the most toxic
because of its carcinogenic health effects (USEPA, 1980a) . The common
method of human exposure is by inhalation due to the volatile nature of
the light aromatics.

Chronic exposure to benzene has the most serious health
effects of the light aromatics because of its increased risk for the
development of leukemia (ERT, 1984) . All of the light aromatic
hydrocarbons affect the central nervous system with acute symptoms
including headache, dizziness, fatigue, nausea, unconsciousness and
coma.

In aguatic ecosystems, the light aromatic hydrocarbons are
moderately toxic to fish and lower species. Toxic levels of benzene,
toluene, and xylene generally range from 1 to 100's of mg-L ^. For
example, rainbow trout were found to have an IC-50 (lethal
concentration for 50 percent of the population) of 5.3 mg-L 1 for
benzene (USEPA, 1980a) .

INTtREv

♦ (c)

,dl

)

,dl

.'.)

,d)

Table 1.2 Carcinogenic Activity of Some Unsubstituted Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbons (ERT, 1983)

Co'wpoond Activity

Acenaphthylen«

AnthanChrena

Anthracene

Benzo [» Jnaphthacene

Benzo (a Jpy rene m (<. d)

BenzoC* Jfluorene

Benzo Cb Jchryaene

Benzo Cbjfluoranthene m , j.

Benzo Cb ]f luortna

Benzo [c Jchrysene

SenzoCc Jfluorene

Benzo [c Jphenanthrena •

Benzo[e Jpyrene

Benzo(g Jchryaene

Benzo CghiJCluoranthene

BenzoCgM Jperylene

EenzoCj JfluoranChene

Benzo Ck ] fluoranthene

SenzCa Janthraceoe

dryaene

Coronene

Dlbenzo(a, e Jpyrene

Dlbenzo[a,h ]pyrene

Olbenzo [a , 1 ]py rene

Dibenzo[a, J Jnaphthacene

OlbenzoCa. 1 ]pyrene

DlbenzoCb.g Jphenanthrene

Dlbenzo(b,k Jehrysene

Dlbenzo (de ,qr Jnaphthacene

Olbenzo [e , 1 Jpy rene

DlbenzCa.c Janthracene

Dlbenz[a,h Janthz-acene

DlbenzCa, J Janthracene

Fluoranthene

Fluorene

Hexacene

LndenoCl,2, 3-c<i Jpyrtne . (c>j)

Kaphtfcacena

Naphthalene

Kaphtho C2. 3-b Jpyrene

Pentacene

Pentaphena

Perylene

Phenanthrene

Plcena

Pyr-ena

Trlben zo [ae 1 Jpy rene
Trlphenylena

oOata fro* Shear, 1938, 1941; Arcos and Argus, 1974; Oipple, 1976-
Santodonato et al., 1981

"Symbols: ♦ complete carcinogen by either skin painting, subcutaneous injection
intramuscular injection, intravenous injection, intraperitoneal injection
intratracheal instillation, oral administration to mammals

- negative in animal bioassay

cCompounds classified as "having substantial evidence of carcinogenicity- bv the U S

it ?fCin^un^S3fS3ment CrOUp (U"S- **■ 1980b)- The CAC lis* «lso includes two '

alkylated PAH (7, 12^irethy lbenz(a )anthracene and J-nethylcholanthrene). as well .-

coal tar and soot", "coke oven emissions (polycyclic organic matter)" and "creosote

Compounds classified as showing "sufficient evidence" of carcinogenicity for «,{_!
carcinogens by the International Agency for Research on Cancer-

- (c.d)

iNirnrv

A recent Ontario Ministry of Labour sponsored study,
(Occupational Health Program, McMaster University, 1986) provides
comprehensive review of the available scientific evidence relating to
health effects of coal tar and other substances which contain
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. This study concludes that there is
sufficient evidence concerning human carcinogenic potential of coal
tar products in the literature to warrant stringent control of
workplace exposures. This study recommends an interim standard for
occupational exposure to volatiles of coal tar products at 0.05 mg/m3
(cyclohexane soluble extract) time weighted over an 8 hour working day
and zero dermal exposure.

INTtRN

2. FIELD INVESTIGATIONS

2.1 PHASE 1 - PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIONS

2.1.1 Historical Review

Prior to the start of any field work, a review of existing
information and a site visit was completed. The review included
INTERA's Inventory report and associated historical site maps and
assessment methods. Most of this information was provided to the
Ministry as part of the Inventory study and was applied to the review
portion of this study. The review of historical site maps included the
maps listed in the reference section of this report.

INTERA also obtained and reviewed air photographs, both
historical and present, for the site. The list of air photos is given
in the reference section of this report. The air photos were compared
to the historical maps to confirm locations of gas plant structures.

The historical review also included the collection and review
of any available geotechnical or engineering information regarding
soils, foundations, buildings, utility lines or bridges. Borehole
logs, test pits, and excavation reports for the police station and city
sewer construction are examples of this type of information. The
complete list of geotechnical reports is given in the reference section
of this report.

The purpose of the review of existing information was to
determine the location of potential waste storage locations. From the
historical maps and site plans, gas plant structures, such as the
condensor house, generator house, gas relief tanks, gas holding tanks,
and tar pipelines were identified and placed on a present-day site plan
as accurately as possible. With the waste storage locations identified
relative to present day structures, it was possible to define

iwirntv

appropriate surface investigations such as sampling and drilling
locations and survey lines. The historical review provides the
information used in site description in Section 1.3. The
interpretation of the historical data is provided in Section 3.1.

In addition, as part of the review, utility lines such as
storm and sanitary sewers, gas lines, building sumps, water and
electrical lines etc. were identified and placed on the site map.
Prior to any field work, all utility lines were also located in the
field.

2.1.2 Ground Probing Radar

Ground probing radar (GPR) was used as a geophysical method
to assist in the identification of buried waste storage locations. The
GPR is a reflection technique using high frequency radio waves which
are bounced off subsurface features. The radar equipment is shown
schematically in Figure 2.1. The radar survey provides a continuous
cross-sectional picture or profile of the subsurface which is
particularly effective in identifying hydrcgeologic conditions and
buried man-made structures.

The GPR survey was completed by Canpolar Consultants Ltd. of
Toronto, a subsidiary of INTERA Technologies Ltd. Canpolar 's GPR
system includes a 120 MHZ frequency antenna, a Hewett-Packard control
unit for processing, a graphic recorder and a magnetic tape recorder.

The GPR survey consisted of the survey lines indicated in
Figure 2.2. The survey lines were situated in areas of easy access and
in areas of suspected buried gas plant structures. An example of the
ground penetrating radar survey is given in Figure 2.3. The complete
survey results are given in Appendix B.

INTtTCX

GRAPHIC RECOROER

ANTENNA

CONTROLLER

Sampler
Circuits

5-300 Met«r

Cable

Gow I Tie

Rodar
Woveform

TAPE RECOROER

o o a a

GROUNO SURFACE

s v^

SOIL

Orowa \rf

0.ck»d by

<Ov-l«iOA«

CVrt.

Ort.
Da<.

I r^TLRA T«chnolo

gioo

Schematic of a Ground Penetrating Radar System

Figure 2.1

I
I
I
I

:.
[
I
1

3
]
I
I
I
I

LU
CC
H
CO

/~"~"\

BARRACK STREET

LU
CC

DC
<

z
o

QUEEN STREET

Drown by

Qwdad by

R«v4«Jonc

Dcrt.

Ckrt.

Dcrt.

I NTEHA Technologies

SITE MAP SHOWING LOCATION OF GROUND
PENETRATING RADAR SURVEY LINES

SCALE 1cm= 10.2m

FIGURE 2.2

I
I

c^-

+->

■o

■1 —

'<-

-O

-i^

tci

+->

C^-

l/>

<+-

S-

1 —

+->

1 —

l^-

•»

i —

•r—

+->

• r-

•o

1 —

•

-CI

•

«=c

<+-

-*:

-o

+->

-Q

JZ.

CL)

4->

.*:

«o

r—

>
s-

3
</1

i — s_

• TD

O fO

Z S-

CU CO

C C

_) -O

- t-

C CL

*-> T3
</> C
CD 3
C O
•r- S_
^1 C3

CVl
UJ

^O
D>

C
SZ

I
I
I
I
I

The radar survey was most useful to identify the sides of the
main and relief gas holder in the Barrack - Place D'Armes block, the
bedrock surface and the water table. The use of ground probing radar
was hampered by the presence of buildings and parking lots covering the
site. When running the survey in the bus garage, for example,
reflections off of the walls and ceiling of the building caused
considerable noise to the receiver which complicated the
interpretation of the results.

2.1.3 Soil Sampling

Soil sampling using a hand auger was conducted on the
Kingston site to provide visual and olfactory evidence of gas plant
wastes in the shallow surface materials. Soil sampling provided a fast
and inexpensive reconnaissance tool in the site investigations.

Soil sampling was conducted using a 32 mm hand auger and
sampler tube to a maximum depth of about 1.0 m. The samples provided
an indication of the type of soils found at the surface and were
visually inspected for evidence of gas plant wastes (i.e., tar,
cinders, ash, oxide box wastes, etc.). Odours, such as the distinctive
coal tar smell which is detectable to levels of about 1 ppb of total
PAH were noted if present. In addition to visual and olfactory
inspections, the soil samples were surveyed for organic vapours using a
photo-ionization detector organic vapour meter (OVM) to provide a more
quantitative indication of coal tar wastes. If the visual and
olfactory evidence indicated coal tar contamination, the soil samples
were retained and were submitted, if necessary, for analysis as part of
the Phase 2 studies.

At the Kingston site, the majority of the property is covered
by buildings, parking lots or pavement. To obtain soil samples, a
3.8 cm diameter hole was drilled using an electric power drill through
the floors of buildings or pavement. Soil samples using the hand auger
were collected through the drilled holes.

INTER*.

The locations selected for soil and soil gas sampling were
based on the results of the ground probing radar survey, the
historical review of waste container locations and the locations of
buried utility lines which may act as conduits for waste migration.
Soil and soil gas sample locations are presented in Figure 2.4.

The soil sampling did not detect evidence of coal tar waste
in any of the shallow holes. For the most part, only fill material was
found in the 1.0 metre deep holes. The fill material was typically
sand, gravel or clay but gas plant wastes such as coal, cinders and ash
were found at several locations (Hole No. 5, 7 and 9) . Because
evidence of coal tar was not found in any of the shallow holes, no soil
samples were submitted as part of this study.

At the Kingston site, an attempt was made to collect soil
samples in the area of all waste storage locations. Numerous
boreholes, 16 in total, were attempted in the shallow soil sampling
program but only 9 were completed to 1.0 metre depth. Most of the
unsuccessful holes met refusal on foundations or boulders which could
not be penetrated with the electric drill.

2.1.4 Soil Gas Sampling

In conjunction with the soil sampling program, soil gas
sampling was also performed. Gas sampling using a Thermo Environmental
Instrument Model 590 organic vapour meter (OVM) was used to identify
light aromatic compounds such as benzene, toluene or xylene which
volatilize from coal tar. The organic vapour meter was used as a
screening tool to provide a general indication of the extent of
hydrocarbon contamination. The organic vapour meter can provide a
detection limit of about 0.1 ppm total organic vapour.

INTUUi

KING STREET

LU
HI

PAIR GARAGE

■ 5

7--

■ ■

PAINT ShOJ*

■9

1 KINGSTON POLICE BLDG.

SHELL GAS

ONTARIO STREET

INTLRIX Technologies

FORMER GAS PLANT - KINGSTON

Locations of Shallow Soil and Soil
Gas Sampling _

Figure 2.4

I
i

L
L

I
I
I

Soil gas samples were collected from the same auger holes
used to collect the soil samples. After collection of the soil sample,
a gas sampling probe was placed to the bottom of the auger hole and
driven by hand a depth of 1.0 m (i.e., 2.0 m below surface) or to
refusal. Soil gas samples were collected from the probe by attaching
the air pump of the organic vapour meter to the top of the probe and
withdrawing a volume of soil gas.

The soil gas was run continually through the OVM for a period
of 2 - 3 minutes to provide a total organic vapour concentration in
ppm. The soil gas concentration was compared to the ambient air
quality which was generally in the range of 0.5 to 2.0 ppm to provide
an indication of contaminated soil conditions. In uncontaminated
conditions, the soil gas concentration was typically less than the
ambient air concentration. In most cases, the open hole soil gas was
also measured after the soil gas probe was removed.

Soil gas sampling was undertaken in the same locations as the
soil samples indicated in Figure 2.4.

The soil gas sampling results are given in Table 2.1.
Organic vapour concentrations significantly above background were found
in test holes 4, 6, 7 and 9. Obvious coal tar contamination was also
found in test holes 7 and 9 on the end of the soil gas probe when it
was removed. In test holes 4 and 6 located inside the paint garage the
interpretation of high organic vapours in the holes is complicated by
the fact that solvents are used in the garage.

INTlRSv

I
I
I

Table 2.1 Kingston Soil Gas Concentrations

Hole
No.

Background
(ppm)

Gas Probe
(ppm)

Open Hole
(ppm)

1.2

1.0

1.5

0.9

1.5

1.0

1.5

25 - 100

1.2

0.9

1.3

2.4

1.2

6-7

0.8

1.2

2.0

16 - 20

1.2

INTtlUi

2.2 PHASE 2 DRILLING AND SAMPLING PROGRAM

The objectives of the Phase 2 Drilling and Sampling Program
were to determine the contents of any identified storage vessels
remaining underground and to determine the presence or absence of any
contamination in the soils and groundwater adjacent to the locations of
former storage vessels. To achieve these objectives, the Phase 2
program was divided into a number of subtasks as follows:

• Air monitoring;

• Health and safety;

• Soil sampling;

• Well installation and sampling;

• Utility line sampling.

The following sections outline the details of each of these

subtasks.

2.2.1 Air Monitoring

Air monitoring was required as part of the site
investigations in order to monitor and control emissions resulting from
the exposure of waste materials and to assist in implementing the
health and safety program. Air monitoring at the Kingston site was
implemented on a real-time basis using a hand held organic vapour meter
(OVM) with an attached gas chroma tograph . The use of real-time
measurements allowed for the immediate implementation of emission
control measures when the OVM indicated hazardous conditions. INTERA's
portable gas chromatograph allowed for a more detailed analysis of the
type and concentration of the emission if a hazardous condition
existed.

Prior to the start of any field work, measurements were taken
three times a day (8:00, 12:00 and 18:00 hours) to establish the
background air quality. These measurements were completed using the

JNTUUi

OVM and the portable GC to provide complete quantification of the
background air quality. Background air quality was typically 0.5 to
2.0 ppm total organic vapour depending on the location. In locations
with automobile traffic the organic vapour concentration was typically
at the higher end of the range. Using the gas chroma tograph, a wide
variety of organic chemicals were detected in the ambient air but all
were at trace levels (i.e., less than 0.1 ppm). Air monitoring using
the OVM was conducted continuously in the downwind direction during all
field work where there existed the potential for exposure of waste or
contaminated material (i.e., during soil sampling and drilling).

Monitoring was also completed periodically (typically at 1
hour intervals) during the drilling activities in order to detect and
monitor possibly hazardous conditions. Monitoring was conducted at the
top of the augers, in the driller's breathing space, and at the mud
discharge line (during rock coring only) . Although the monitoring
occasionally indicated high readings (i.e., 10-25 ppm) at the top of
the augers and/or the mud line during the drilling of contaminated
material, the ambient air quality at the perimeter of the work area was
not impacted during the field activities.

2.2.2 Health and Safety Plan

The health and safety plan (HSP) for all field work conducted
on the Kingston site followed the Ministry of Labour's "Occupational
Health Protocols for Workers Exposed to Waste from Decommissioned Coal
Gasification Plant Sites".

The health and safety procedures were inspected during the
drilling activities by the Ministry of Labour and were found to be
compliant with the protocols.

The following paragraphs outline special health and safety
procedures used during the field activities.

iNTUUs,

2.2.2.1 Air Monitoring. The monitoring program for air quality
described in Section 2.2.1 showed that the field activities did not
significantly impact the ambient air quality beyond the perimeter of
the work area. Total organic vapour concentrations equal to the
background concentrations were always detected in the downwind
direction. Elevated organic vapour readings were detected in the
augers and at the mud tank but background concentrations were found in
the workers breathing space. As a precaution, half-face respirators
with organic vapour/acid gas cartridges were worn with other safety
equipment whenever hazardous materials were encountered.

2.2.2.2 Equipment Decontamination . In Kingston, all equipment exposed
to contaminated materials was decontaminated using the high pressure,
steam wash unit located in the FUC's bus wash station. Washing was
completed using a steam wash, detergent wash and water wash cycle. All
wash waters were flushed to the sanitary sewer.

2.2.2.3 Waste Material Handling. Any solid or liquid material that
was considered to be hazardous was stored on-site in 45 gallon drums
with lids. The hazardous material was removed for disposal under an

DE emergency generator registration by O.E. MacDougall, a licensed
waste hauler. The drilling wash water from the rock coring operation
was disposed to the sanitary trunk sewer with the approval of the City
of Kingston Works Department and MOE.

2.2.3 Drilling Locations

On the Kingston site the locations of the test boreholes were
selected to assess former gas plant structures identified as part of
Phase 1 investigations and to assess subsurface conditions at the
boundaries of the site. Four boreholes were located at the corners of
the former gas plant site and one borehole was located at the center of
the Queen-Barrack block. These boreholes were also situated as much as

,.VilR!\

possible in the area of suspected gas plant structures. One
additional borehole was placed off-site in the area of the north end of
King Street. Ihe borehole locations are given in Figure 2.5.

2.2.4 Drilling and Soil Sampling

Drilling was completed using a truck mounted soil-auger drill
rig (CME 75) , hollow stem augers, a continuous soil sampler or split
spoon sampler and rock coring equipment. Drilling equipment was
supplied and operated by Environmental Systems of Ingersoll. The
continuous soil sampler or split spoon was advanced in front of the
lead auger and collected a soil core for soil identification and
logging. Each auger borehole was advanced to the bedrock surface which
in most cases was at depths less than 2.5 m. The boreholes were
advanced into the bedrock using a HQ rock coring technique which left a
borehole of about 100 mm diameter. The bedrock was cored continuously
to depths of up to 10 m below surface.

Each soil sample or rock core was logged for stratigraphy
noting soil type, grain size, texture and structure. In addition to
logging for stratigraphy, each soil sample was examined for visual or
olfactory evidence of contamination. /An organic vapour meter was used
to monitor each sample for coal tar wastes. The interpretation of
odours and organic vapours was complicated in the rock coring technique
because as soon as a contaminated zone was intersected the drill water
would take on a coal tar odour. The drill water would then add odours
and vapours to the core regardless of whether or not coal tar was
present. After logging, each soil sample or rock core was bagged,
labelled and stored for future reference. All information regarding
soil stratigraphy, structure, evidence of odours or waste etc. was
identified on a borehole log. The borehole logs are contained in
Appendix C.

INTUUi

31
2.2.5 Surface Water and Sediment Samples

Surface water sanples were collected from Anglin Bay at the
end of King St. and from Lake Ontario at the end of Queen St. A
background sample was collected from the bridge of the LaSalle
Causeway. Sediment samples were collected from the bank of the Great
Cataragui River at Anglin Bay and at Kingston Harbour, to define the
extent and type, if any, of tar wastes in the sediments. The sampling
locations are identified in Figure 2.6 and listed as follows:

1. Bank of Anglin Bay at end of King Street East;

2. Kingston Harbour at end of Queen Street;

3. Bridge of the Lasalle Causeway.

These locations provide a preliminary indication to determine
if contamination from the gas plant is reaching the Great Cataragui
River, St. Lawrence River (east of mouth of Great Cataragui River) or
Lake Ontario (west of mouth of Great Cataragui River) .

Surface water samples were collected by simply immersing the
sample bottle. The surface water samples were analyzed for major ions
(Na, K, Ca, Mg, S04, CI, Si, N03+N02, NH3, Fe, Mg, Cu, Zn) ,
conductivity, pH, TDS, TOC, turbidity, and colour as well as PAH. The
surface water guality results are given in Appendix D and the
interpretation of the results are given in Section 3.

Sediment samples were collected using a hand driven soil
sampler. This sampler type allowed for an assessment of waste material
of the shallow sediment only and is not representative of deeper
sediment. Each sample was described in terms of composition then
examined for visual and olfactory evidence of tar. The samples were
placed into glass sample jars for storage. The sediment samples were
Fubmitted for chemical analysis for the following compounds:

8NTlR5v

INTERS Technologies

FORMER GAS PLANT - KINGSTON
Surface Water and Sediment Sampling Locations

Figure 2.6

Trace metals,

Cyanide,

Volatile Organics (including benzene, toluene, xylene) ,

Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (17-EPA Priority PAHs, including

naphthalene, benzo(a)pyrene) .

The results of the sediment analyses are found in Appendix D and
described in Section 3.

2.2.6 Monitoring Well Installation and Sampling

After the drilling of test holes in the soil sampling
program, the holes were completed as temporary monitoring wells for the
purpose of providing water level measurements and water quality
samples. The well locations are the same as the drilling soil sampling
locations given in Figure 2.5. Each of the boreholes was completed as
a monitoring well with either one or two screened intervals placed in
each hole. The well installation details are given in Table 2.2 and as
constructed drawings are given in Appendix C. In some boreholes two
well screens were set at different levels to provide two monitoring
points. In these locations, one 1.5 m length, 32 mm diameter PVC well
screen and flush threaded PVC pipe was placed at the bottom of the
borehole and sand packed into place using a silica sand. The second
PVC well screen (3.0 m length and 32 mm diameter) and pipe was placed
to straddle the water table and was separated from the lower well
screen by a bentonite plug. The upper screen was sand packed along its
length and the remainder of the borehole filled with bentonite to
ground surface. The lower well screen was designated the "A" well
while the upper was designated the "B" well. A protective casing with
a locking cap was placed around the standpipe at surface. All
monitoring well equipment was washed with tap water, methanol and
distilled water by the manufacturer prior to use.

INTERS^

TABLE 2.2

FORMER GAS

PLANT

STUDY

KINGSTON,

ONTARIO

SUMMARY OF

WELL

INSTALLATION DETAILS

WELL

TOP OF

GROUND

BOT

. OF

TOP OF

BOT. OF

INTERVAL

NUMBER

CASING

SURFACE

HOLE

SANDPACK

LENGTH

(mASL)

(m)

K-1A

79.42

78.67

67.77

70.26

67.77

2.49

K-1B

79.42

78.67

67.77

76.69

72.12

4.57

K-2

80.88

30. 12

72.40

79.21

72.40

6.81

K-3A

78.86

78. 17

67.22

69.86

67. 22

2.64

K-3B

78.86

78.17

67.22

76.04

71.41

4 .63

K-4

80.67

80.08

75.71

78.25

76.09

2.16

K-5A

80.60

79.89

69.04

71.41

69.04

2.37

K-53

80.60

79.89

69.04

77.58

73. 16

4.42

K-6A

77.94

77.38

66.48

68.90

66.48

2.42

K-6B

77.94

77.38

66.48

76.16

71.89

4.27

INTtRk

I
I
I
I
I

Where a single well screen was placed in each borehole, the
screen was set at the bottom of the borehole and completed as for the
upper screen in the double installation.

After installation, each well was developed by surging using
a surge block and purging of three well volumes using a Waterra hand
pump. In some cases, where the well was known to contain free product,
a pump was dedicated to the well. The purge water was contained
on-site in 45 gallon drums and disposed to the sanitary trunk sewer
with the approval of the City of Kingston Works Department and MOE.

Each monitoring well was slug tested at least three times
where possible to determine the average hydraulic conductivity of the
well interval. The slug test method consisted of removing a volume of
water from the well using the Waterra pump as a bailer and monitoring
the recovery of the water level. The results of the slug testing are
presented in Table 2.3 and discussed in Section 3.

Each monitoring well was surveyed by an Ontario Land Surveyor
to determine its elevation with respect to mean sea level.

Prior to sampling, each well was purged of another three well
volumes or purged dry. Groundwater samples were collected from the
well as it recovered using a 6 mm diameter polyethylene tube and a
peristaltic pump.

All sampling equipment was washed with tap water, methanol,
and distilled water prior to use to prevent cross-contamination. The
6 mm diameter sampling tube and peristaltic pump tube were used once
and disposed.

Samples were analyzed for the parameters given in Table 2.4.
EH, electrical conductance and temperature were measured on each sample
in the field.

INTERN

TABLE 2

.3 SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST

RESULTS

FOR THE FORMER KINGSTON GAS

PLANT

WELL

INTERVAL

WELL

HYDRAULIC

TRANS -

ANALYSIS

NUMBER

LENGTH

RADIUS

CONDUCT

MISSIVITY

TYPE

(m)

(IC/S)

(m2/s)

K-1A

2.51

.048

2.9E-08

7.3E-08

K-1B

2.92

.048

8.4E-07

2.5E-06

K-2

6.81

.152

>1 .0 E-04

K-3A

2.64

.048

1.5E-06

4 . OE-06

K-3B

4.62

. 048

3 . 6E-07

1.7E-06

K-4

2. 16

.048

K-5A

2.37

.048

2.6E-09

6. 2E-09

K-5B

3. 67

.048

1. 1E-06

4 .OE-06

C,H

K-6A

2.41

. 048

1.5E-06

3. 6E-06

C,H

K-6B

4.27

.152

1.6E-07

6.8E-07

C = COOPER

H = HVORSLEV

R = RECOVERY

NA = NOT

AN ALY SABLE

INTEf^

Table 2.4 Hydrochemistry Parameters

Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Potassium

Trace Metals:

Alkalinity

Bicarbonate

Sulphate

Sulphide

Chloride

Cyanide

Ammonium

TKN

COD

TOC

Phenols

Volatiles:

Benzene
Toluene
Xylenes

PAHs:

17-EPA Priority PAHs including:

Benzo(a)pyrene

Naphthalene

INTtRBv

The following parameters required special preservation
techniques:

• Trace metals - HN03;

• Cyanide - 50% NaOH;

• Phenols - H3PO4 to pH 4 and CuS04.

All samples were packed on ice until delivery to the laboratory.
Volatile organic samples were collected in amber glass septum vials and
filled without air bubbles. PAH and cyanide samples were also collected
in amber glass bottles.

Six groundwater samples from monitoring wells K1A, K1B, K2,
K3A, K5A and K6A were submitted for analysis. Groundwater samples
collected for volatiles and PAH were sent to Naval ab, in Lachine,
Quebec while all other samples were sent to Bondar-Clegg Laboratories,
Ottawa. The complete groundwater analytical results are given in
Appendix E. The interpretation of the results is given in Section 3.

After sampling a water level monitoring program was
implemented to determine the static piezometric level for each well.
Water levels from all wells were collected on the same day. Water
level elevations were reported with respect to mean sea level. The
results of the water level monitoring are given in Table 2.5 and are
discussed in Section 3.

2.2.7 Utility Line and Sump Inspections

Utility lines and building sumps in the area of the gas plant
were inspected for evidence of coal tar contamination. The utility
lines, the storm and sanitary sewers were of primary concern because
these lines receive runoff water and are typically the deepest of all
utility lines. Each of the storm and sanitary sewer manholes indicated

imuus,

E->

rj
u

CO
a

i vo

: to

o ..

J z w

W H B

> X KC

W Q

~ ° a

G >. H

E-> E-> CO

< M tf

S CJ J

0 —

IT.

•ji

[-■

c <

r .

vo rt

t~t r-i -<-i rJ

■v*

i -

■o

vr uj

01 PJ * » to

4-> > IC <

-J

-.-

■;)

-r

•r -r

(0 0) > •

(

1 -

[ -

i- r-

SJ « E

r-l —

■a —

o o

l*>

«r

cc cr>

llHllO

•«r

01 r-i

« m a f

4-> > 0) [Q

i/i

•*r

cm rH

ID (U 10

3 J 0) •

£ E

—

CO
CO

*■»•

M VO

CO IN

Eh 1

Z CO

CO o

m < s

CM Pi

« U

HWIm

►h £ f-j

m 2 o

*C O «

H b- Ch

c —

-T

u .-h

-1 J

-r

0) 0)

4-1 CO

p >

ID <

-T

■*

<■

• r

•o

*s*

•X)

10 Qi

J> .

[ .

; -

r»

* J

<u E

rH —

TJ --

0) O

1-1 H

Ij o

■m*

■ j

III

a) c

3 fH

•p >

01 £

•4"

Nj*

_■

."■-J

10 01

S >J

•z c

0 ~

r«

r-«

•»r

)-i

•H >4

4J CO

(0 <

■^r

»t

> .

r--

■*

4) (5

T> ^~

01 U

■*

i •

■^r

»H

M o

a H

w cc

c-a

■m

<CJ

t-4

01 .

4->

a
c,
p

p
•j

i/i

INTER*

a-.

in in

ij oi c\ ca h h io lo

cy 3 CO

i~* r^

r- vc vo in p> r~ lt m

C A O

•H U <

CO --H .

10 P E

CJ IQ —

0 —

rj C4

M O «> 1^ O C 1 V H

-n Q

T T

COCOCPVOVJVDOIOIO

rH P KIT
^H 10

ai en

ococoooor-r^vo

0) > •

r^ r^

uor^r^cococcr^r^r^

2 01 E

• — i * — *

C C P

O 0 CO

•rH -H

P P O'

y. x

io io r.

Ij D

P P -H C, W 4-> P

C 0

(0 10

CO CO x o o 0 0 •

0 -H

u u

\ 'J 0 ^! J -1

■H 4-1

u u

01 01 C -M -H

p a

10 if

U C 0 i-i <-• Di Oi 'S

(0 -H

a ca

•^ -^ -^ n-i <u c C

U U

U <-i r-t P O O "H -H >,

q o

Ol 14)

01 O O " .* Js m

J w

ufccyuuuiia

0 0

r-t CO D D CO 10

-^H -t-*

O T> n Pk Cvi Ch ft. c

u u

a: c c »4 -h

IC IS

■H -H D 01 'U 0. 3. rH

P 4J

i/ir:jsr«ooMi-ir!i

c c

(0 01 01 o • • X 3 c

o o

U 10 M D. uw o o <

*-t

r-< a

CI H

< 03

< a .£ 33 < a

1 1

n n n vr 1.1 u"i io o >,

1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 10

u: «

t<«;<^^:tj«xcc

■Cl w 01

o > ^

u o c

3 i= Q

U O O

.0 >H

0) CO

S T3 '-4

•H 0)

0) rH 4J

1-1 C

io x; s

ui -H c:

rH S "H

11 Oi i'

5 »o u

()«4J

rH Cl-

•n

10 l: .J

•H CO

^4 CO <

•> .

o <o

<M 0 •

e -o

<n <-h -^

rH 01

01 0 00

CT>

> P c

1' CO o

rH rH

11) p

•

ii x: io

0) 4-> >

P Ci)

l-i

(0 •*-• rH

3 0 M

^^ ,

■1>

rH CM

••

U-i

ca w

H Ei

o o

3 2

(t.

on Figure 2.7 were inspected with the assistance of the City of
Kingston Works Department for evidence of coal tar contamination or
odours. None of the manholes inspected had any indication of coal tar
contamination .

An inspection of building sumps was completed to determine if
contaminated water was seeping into on-site buildings. Sumps in the
police station (two locations) , the electrical substation, and the
building inspection office were included in this survey. The main sump
in the police station had a slight odour of coal tar while the other
three sumps were free of odours. One sample was collected from each of
the two pipes discharging to the sewer to determine the PAH
concentration of the water. The analytical results and the
interpretation of the results are described in Section 3.

\NYUU\

3. INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS
3.1 HISTORICAL REVIEW

3.1.1 Gas Plant History

The Kingston Gas Plant began operation in about 1848. By
1864, the Kingston Gas Light Company had been formed and by 1881 the
plant employed seven people with .the total value of production
estimated at $14,000 (Can. Census, 1881). In 1892, the gas plant was
listed in the Ontario Gazateer (1892 - 1893) as the Kingston Light,
Heat and Power Co. with total capital of $100,000. The City of
Kingston acquired the plant from private interests on August 1, 1904.
At this time, the plant was a retort gas operation producing in one
year about 26,652 million cubic feet (m.c.f) of gas (Canadian Gas
Association, 1970). (Note: 1 ton of coal produced about 11,000 cubic
feet of gas and 70 - 120 lbs. of coal tar.) The gas plant and the
production of gas for consumers became the responsibility of the
Kingston Public Utilities on January 1, 1914. By 1925, as reported by
the Canadian Gas Association (1970), the retort gas process was
replaced by a carburetted water gas process. Two sets of
Merrifield-Westcott gas producers were in operation in 1930 - 1935 but
by 1937 - 1939 only one was in use producing 90,000 m.c.f. while one
was idle (capacity of 70,000 m.c.f.). By 1950 the gas plant was
abandoned and replaced by a propane air mix plant.

3.1.2 Gas Plant Operation

The Kingston Gas plant likely used three different gas
manufacturing processes; retort gas, blue gas and carburetted water gas
during its history.

The retort gas process was a relatively simple gas generating
process which, in Kingston, was probably used in its earliest stages

iNTUUs.

beginning in 1848. Ihe retort gas process consisted of feeding coal
into a vertical or horizontal retort (initially probably a horizontal
retort but later replaced by a vertical retort) and carbonizing
(burning in a closed vessel) the coal to produce coke and retort gas.
In Kingston, it appears steam was added to the hot coke and retort gas
produce blue gas (also called water gas) and to substantially
increase the gas yield. This process was likely completed in cycles,
first combusting the coal/coke using air blasts then passing steam
through the hot fuel bed.

At Kingston, the blue gas was also enriched by cracking oil
in the presence of the gas and steam. This process was called
carburetted water gas and produced a gas that is high in heating value.
The oil was typically a Bunker "C" type oil. The process consisted of
adding oil, in a spray, to the blue gas in a carburetor. The mixture
was then heated in a superheater which cracked the oil to more simple
gases. As in the blue gas process, the carburetted water gas was
generated in cycles.

Once the gas had been generated it was necessary to cool and
lean the gas before it could be sold to consumers. Prior to cleaning
the gas was stored in a relief gas holder. The clean-up process
usually consisted of condensing the gas and scrubbing the gas with
water to remove the tars, oils and water from the gas. The tars, oils
and water were usually separated by gravity and stored in on-site
underground tanks known as tar wells. The gas was then passed through
oxide boxes in a purifying house to remove sulphur. When the gas was
clean it was stored in the main gas holder prior to being distributed
to consumers. The gas was distributed through a metering house.

On the Kingston site, the locations of most of the gas plant

structures mentioned above can be identified. Using historical fire

' nsurance maps, the buildings of the gas plant can be compared to the

present on-site buildings for the periods 1908 (Figure 1.3 and 3.1) and

1924 (Figures 1.4 and 3.2).

INTtRBv

LU
LLI
DC
b-

(f)

BARRACK STREET

/ \

i 4

• 2 1

GAS GENERATOR
OIL TANK

LIEF GAS HOLDER
CONDENSER
PURIFIER
MAIN GAS HOLDER
METER HOUSE
COAL SHED

LLI
LU
DC

DC
<

LZ
O

QUEEN STREET

D*"0»n by

Dot«

0«ck»d by

Revisions

Oo<«

I I NTE-RA Technologies

COMPARISON OF 1908 GAS PLANT BUILDINGS TO THE
PRESENT SITE BUILDINGS

FIGURE 3.1

•

BARRACK STREET

LU
CC
H
CO

QUEEN STREET

GAS GENERATOR
OIL TANK
RELIEF GAS TANK
CONDENSER
PURIFIER
MAIN GAS HOLDER
METER HOUSE
COAL SHED
OXIDE ROOM

LU
LU

cr
(f)

• 1

!*!

L.J

v^'

*•_ — (— — — — .

9 •

4_i

DC
<

Dtuwn by

0«ck»<l by

Revisions

Data

Dot.

COMPARISON OF 1924 GAS PLANT BUILDINGS TO THE
PRESENT SITE BUILDINGS

I NTERA Technologies

FIGURE 3.2

In 1908, the gas generator or retort house (1) was located on
Queen Street east of the electrical substation. The original building
is still standing and presently houses commercial businesses. The gas
may have been supplemented by oil in a carburetted water gas process
using the oil tanks (2) but in 1908 this process was not in common use
in Canada. If water gas was not in use then the purpose of on-site oil
tanks is unknown unless they were used for oil-tar storage or as fuel
in the retort house. The gas after it was produced would have been
stored in the relief gas holder (s) (3) . In 1908, two relief gas
holders, one in what is now the FUC paint shop and one in the area of
the present FUC repair garage were present on-site. The outline of the
gas holder in the paint shop is still evident in the floor of the
original buildings. It is unlikely that both of the relief gas holders
were used at the same time. The usual practice was to abandon older
tanks as newer, larger tanks were built and therefore one of the tanks
may have been an earlier relief holder while the other was a main gas
holder.

The gas cleaning area was located in the area of the present
repair garage. The condenser (4) was located in the southeast corner
of the building. The tar wells may have been located underground in
this area but the exact location is not identified on any maps. The
purifying house (5) adjacent to the condenser would have contained the
oxide boxes for removal from the sulphur and possibly storage areas for
iron oxide. Parts of the condenser and purifying house may remain
on-site in its present use as a PUC office and locker room. The clean
gas, ready for distribution, was stored in the main gas holder (6)
located in the Barrack/Place D'Armes block. The surface structure of
the gas holder has been removed and the area is occupied by a PUC bus
garage. The meter house (7) was used to pump the gas to consumers and
to regulate the gas flow. The meter house is still in use as a city
parking meter repair shop.

INTtlUi

By 1924, the gas plant layout had changed. Ihe gas producers
(1), by this time were two carburetted water gas producers located in
the same building. The oil tanks (2) were likely used to add oil to
the gas mixture during the gas generating process. The produced gas
was stored in a relief gas holder (3, the former main gas holder) on
the Barrack/PlacG D'Armes block. The condenser house (4) was located
in a small building near to the original 1908 location (Note that the
condenser house is not identified on the 1924 map but was located on a
RJC property plan) . In all probability, the same tar wells would have
been used in the condenser house. The purifying house (5) in 1924 was
located off of Barrack St. in the area of the coal shed in 1908 and the
present location of the bus wash. The cleaned gas was stored in a main
gas holding tank (6) on the corner of King and Place D'Armes. The
outline of the main gas holding tank is still visible in what is now a
parking lot. The gas was distributed through the meter house (7)
located adjacent to the purifying house. An oxide storage room (9) was
located off of the purifying house.

3.2 SITE GEODDGY

3.2.1 Regional Geology

The regional geology of the Kingston area consists of
Paleozoic strata overlying the Precambrian rocks of the Canadian Shield
and underlying surficial deposits of Pleistocene age. The regional
geologic cross section is given in Figure 3.3.

The Precambrian rocks consist primarily of granite and
crystalline limestone of the Grenville Province. The Frontenac Axis, a
northwest - southeast trending uplift area of the Canadian Shield, is
located to the east of Kingston. The Precambrian rocks are exposed
in the bottom of the Cararagui River to the north but are typically at

imiRSi

unconformity

Pleistocene

Ordovician

Cambrian/
Ordovician

Simcoe
Group

Verulam

Bobcaygeon

Gull River

Shadow Lake

Potsdam

Precambrian

Drawn by

Checked by

Revisions

Date

Dote

I NTLRA Technologies

Stratigraphic Column - Kingston Area

Figure 3.3

depths of 30 to 60 metres in the Kingston area. The surface of the
Precambrian rocks tend to influence the surface of the Paleozoic rocks
with the Paleozoic rocks draped over the Precambrian surface. The
Precambrian geology is described in detail by Wynne-Edwards (1967) .

The Paleozoic stratigraphy comprises rocks of Cambrian (500
to 570 million years before present) and Ordovician (440 to 500 million
years before present) ages. The Potsdam sandstone lies unconformably
on the Precambrian basement and is generally accepted to be of Cambrian
or late Ordovician age. The Potsdam Formation is a red and pink to
white, grey and yellow sandstone and siltstone. The Potsdam is
overlain by the Shadow Lake Formation, deeply weathered red, black and
green shales, sandstones and arkoses (Liberty, 1971) .

The Simcoe Group comprises carbonate strata lying conformably
above the Shadow Lake Formation. This group can be divided into four
formations: Gull River, Bobcaygeon, Verulam and Lindsay in ascending
order. The thickness of the Simcoe Group increases to the west. The
Gull River Formation, which is typically 60 to 70 m in thickness,
consists of fine crystalline or lithographic limestone with thin shale
interbeds or shale parting in the upper members. The Bobcaygeon
Formation, which is 12 to 22 m thick, is a thin bedded, grey,
calcarenitic and sublithographic limestone whereas the Verulam
Formation which is 60 to 90 m thick consists of interbedded fine and
medium crystalline limestone and weathered calcareous claystone with
shale partings. The regional dip of the Paleozoic strata in the area
is about 1.9 to 2.8 m per kilometre to the south and southwest. The
strike of the regional stratigraphic units is from east to southeast.
Locally, however, where the Precambrian is tilted, the strike may be
northeasterly resulting in a minor southeasterly dip (Peterson, 1969) .

The Pleistocene age deposits consist of a thin veneer of
glacial drift covering most of the area. Thin irregular deposits of
glacial till and a few eskers and drumlins overlie Paleozoic sediments
in the Kingston area. Glacial lacustrine deposits consisting of mostly

INTIREi

clay and silt and minor sand and gravel or beach deposits are found

covcriiK) most ol the region.

3.2.2 Local Geology

For the Kingston Gas Plant site and surrounding property, the
shallow geology is relatively simple and is consistent with the
regional geology. Based on the results of boreholes drilled as part of
this study and boreholes from city sewer construction (see Figure 2.5
and Appendix C) , the overburden is relatively thin, on the order of 1.5
to 7.6 metres in thickness and overlies limestone bedrock of the Gull
River Formation. The geology of the site is illustrated in an
east-west cross-section in Figure 3.4 and in a north-south
cross-section in Figure 3.5. The lines of cross-section are
illustrated in Figure 2.5.

The overburden material consists of fill, lacustrine clay and
glacial till from the surface down. The fill material is variable in
nature consisting of clay, sand, gravel, cinders, ash, coal, asphalt,
concrete and boulders depending on the location. In all areas of
shallow bedrock (i.e., within 2 m of surface) especially on the former
gas plant property the fill material extends to the bedrock surface.
In these locations, the fill is predominantly a disturbed, dense brown,
weathered clay. There was evidence of coal tar waste materials in the
fill material in borehole K4 adjacent to the electrical substation and
in borehole K2 in the area of the main gas holder. In borehole K4 an
oily hydrocarbon product with a coal tar odour was found from about 1.0
metre below surface to the top of rock at about 2.7 metres below
surface. When drilling borehole K2 which was located on top of the
former gas holding tank approximately 7.7 m of fill material above
bedrock was intersected. It is possible that the gas holding tank was
excavated into rock for construction and then backfilled when it was
abandoned. The fill material in the main gas holding tank consists of
dense clay at surface to about 2.2 metres below surface and then coarse

SNTtRSw

D+

•

CO
g

8£

CD
CO

o
o

llllliEI

a.
o

O CO

2
<

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIII

4tttfl

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIIIIIIII1

i—

■4-»

—

E
o

(~ISVW) N0I1VA313

CT>
CO

CO
CD

f--
C0

nsv »')

uoiicaoi 3

CO
10

I I

co c/>

niiimi

O.
n

LU
CJ3

I I

ID
10

gravel and boulders to the top of rock. The gravel and boulder
material is very porous as evidenced by the lack of cutting return
during auguring. It is estimated that the porosity is about 50 to 75%
in this material. Free coal tar was also found in this borehole in the
last 0.6 m above bedrock.

The only borehole that intersected substantial thicknesses of
overburden was borehole K6 located in the OHIP parking lot. This
borehole intersected 7.5 m of fill and overburden above bedrock. The
upper 2.0 metres consisted of fill underlain by dark grey mottled, hard
clay. The clay material is likely a glacial lacustrine deposit. The
clay extends to 6.4 metres below surface. A sandy till with gravel is
found immediately above bedrock.

The bedrock in the area of the former gas plant is the Gull
River Formation and the Bobcaygeon and Verulam Formations were not
found at this site. The Gull Paver is typically a grey finely
crystalline limestone with thin shale seams and stylolites.
Occasionally, the shale seams are weathered to a muddy clay. The
limestone is relatively massive with only occasional horizontal bedding
planes. The rock quality of cores is generally good for shallow
bedrock and there is little evidence of weathering at the bedrock
surface.

The bedrock surface is illustrated in Figure 3.6. Generally
the bedrock surface is relatively flat to gently undulating. The
bedrock surface increases in depth below surface to the east and
especially to the north in the area of borehole K6. Bedrock is exposed
at surface to the northwest of the site in the area of Bay Street and
Montreal Road.

INTtRk

LEGEND

INTERA BOREHOLE
0 CITY OF KINGSTON BOREHOLE

■ POLICE STATION TEST PIT

« POINT ELEVATION

75 85 BEDROCK SURFACE ELEVATION (mASL)

SCALE 1cm=:l5.5r

INTLRJX Technologies

FORMER GAS PLANT - KINGSTON

BEDROCK SURFACE CONTOUR MAP (mASL)
CONTOUR INTERVAL- I 0 m

Figure 3.6

Structurally, the bedrock is relatively sound and is broken
only by bedding planes and joints. The bedding planes are commonly at
shale partings and typically spaced on average every 0.6 m based on
observations of the core. The bedding planes are usually open but may
be infilled with calcite. The orientation of the bedding planes is
assumed the same as the regional trend: striking to the east-
southeast and dipping to the south - southwest at 1 to 2 metres per
kilometre however strike and dip measurements were not obtained from
the boreholes.

Jointing in the Paleozoic bedrock in the Kingston area has

been studied by Bawden (1970), Clark (1959) and Peterson (1969) and

they have found four major joint sets. The four major joint sets are
illustrated in Figure 3.7 and listed as follows:

• Strike 220° Dip 90°

• Strike 313° Dip 90°

• Strike 225° Dip 90°

• Strike 278° Dip 90°

These joint sets generally have spacings of 1 to 3 m.

During the drilling program considerable coal tar
contamination was found in the bedrock. As soon as the "tar-bearing"
zones were intersected there was a noticeable odour at the top of the
augers and in the mud tank and the mud return water had an obvious
oily sheen to it. Upon retrieval of the core runs, free coal tar was
often found coating the bedding planes or as blobs stuck to the surface
of the fractures indicating that coal tar may be migrating along the
bedding plane. Free tar did not appear to have penetrated the intact
rock although intact cores also had distinct odours of coal tars.

imuus.

Z78/90

Z20-/90'

SCALE

(from Bawden, 1970)

Onjwn by

Ch«cJt*d by

Revisions

Dot«

I NITERS Technologies

MAJOR JOINT SETS IN THE PALEOZOIC BEDROCK
IN THE KINGSTON AREA

FIGURE 3.7

[
[
I

57
3.3 SITE HYDROGEOLOGY

3.3.1 Groundwater System

The groundwater system in the area of the former Kingston gas
plant, like other urban environments is complicated by man-made
influences.

The shallow groundwater on the gas plant site is contained in
the bedrock with the water table at depths of about 2 to 5 metres below
surface. Groundwater flow in the bedrock is primarily along the
bedding planes and joints within the rock and to a lesser extent in the
pore spaces of the intact rock. On a regional scale, the groundwater
flow direction would be directed towards the Cataragui River and Lake
Ontario. At the site, groundwater flow is influenced more by man-made
structures than the regional flow. The water table levels and
piezometric elevations on May 3, 1988 for all of the monitoring wells
are given in Table 2.4 and Figure 3.8. Although the monitoring wells
are limited in areal extent, it is possible to make some
generalizations regarding the groundwater flow on-site. The low point
on-site is the building sump in the basement of the police station
which is at an elevation of about 73.2 m ASL which is lower than the
water level in Lake Ontario. This sump is connected to the foundation
drains and collects groundwater surrounding the building. The total
flow to the sumps from the drainage pipes was estimated to be in the
range of 90 to 180 l/min on May 4, 1988. Because of the high flow to
the sump the groundwater flow in the area of the building is directed
to the foundation drains.

In addition to the building sump in the police station, storm
and sanitary sewers may also have an influence on the groundwater flow.
Of primary concern is the sanitary trunk sewer that runs along the

BNTlRDv

FORMER GAS PLANT - KINGSTON
Water Levels in mASL at the Kingston Gas Plant

I NTLRIX Technologies

Figure 3.8

centre of Ontario Street and up Place D'Armes. This sewer (invert
elevation 72.56 m ASL) would act as a permeable conduit in the bedrock
and a preferential flow pathway for groundwater.

In the area of monitoring well K2, it is likely that the
water level (78.07 m ASL) is perched on top of the former gas holding
tank because the water level is significantly above the water levels
for the rest of the site. The perched water table is caused by the
walls of the tank and essentially the tank acts as a "bathtub".
Seepage from the "bathtub" likely occurs through cracks in the walls or
base or from holes in the walls caused by utility line construction.

In the area of monitoring well K6, the water table is located
in the overburden at an elevation of 74.96 m ASL and the groundwater
likely flows towards Anglin Bay (water level elevation of 74.83 m ASL) .

Horizontal hydraulic gradients for the water table can not be

estimated with accuracy because the monitoring well network is not a

really extensive and the water table is influenced by man-made

factors. The gradient is, however, the greatest in the area of the

-jlice station because of the influence of the building sump.

The vertical hydraulic gradients are similarly affected by
on-site man-made structures. Of the four boreholes in which there are
two monitoring wells, three of the locations (KL, K5 and K6) have
downward gradients which indicates the water table is recharging the
deeper bedrock while one location (K3) indicates that the groundwater
•.low is directed upward probably towards the sump in the police
station.

The hydraulic conductivities determined from slug testing of
the monitoring wells were given in Table 2.3. The hydraulic
conductivities in the bedrock range from 2.6 x 10 9 to 1.5 x 10 6 m/s
with an average of 2.5 x 10-7 m/s and a single overburden (clay/till)
result yields an average value of 1.6 x lo"7 m/s. For the bedrock the

iWTtRSv

range of values are typical for a limestone formation (Freeze and
Cherry, 1979) . The wide range of values represents the fractured
nature of the bedrock. Test intervals containing several open bedding
planes or joints will have higher hydraulic conductivities than those
intervals containing intact rock. Because the bedrock contains shale
interbeds, bedding planes and joints, the hydraulic conductivity is
dependent on position within the formation (i.e., heterogeneity) and
the direction of measurement (i.e., anisotropy) . Higher hydraulic
conductivities are likely to be found parallel to the major joint
orientation and along bedding planes.

During the slug testing in K2, the water level recovery was
too fast to measure. A fast response in a slug test usually indicates
a hydraulic conductivity greater than 1 x 10 4 m/s. This high value is
consistent with the "bathtub" affect in that if the area was not
contained the high permeability material would not support a perched
water table.

3.3.2 Groundwater Quality

The complete water quality analyses for the six monitoring
wells that were sampled are given in Appendix E. This section provides
an interpretation and discussion of the significance of the results.
The interpretation of the results is based on a one-time sampling
event.

Coal tar waste in the form of free coal tar was encountered
in each of the boreholes drilled as part of the site investigations
and therefore the water quality reflects this contamination.
Because contamination was found in each of the sampled wells, a
background water quality can not be determined. Wells such as K1B, K2
and K6A contain free coal tar. A comparison of the water quality
between wells is given in Figure 3.9 using the organic contaminants
phenol, benzene, benzo(a)pyrene, and napthalene. These parameters are

bftnuui

[
[

[

L
[

reliable indicators of coal tar because they are all components of tar
and represent soluble (i.e., phenol and benzene) and less soluble
(i.e., naphthalene and benzo(a)pyrene) compounds.

The phenol concentrations range from 2 to 430 ppb and are
highest in the area of boreholes K3 and K5. Phenol has a high
solubility (over 10,000 ppm) , low vapour pressure and low adsorption
coefficient and therefore it tends to migrate with the groundwater.
The fact that the concentrations are relatively high (background
concentrations are probably 1-2 ppb) indicates that there is a
possible source on-site which is generating leachate containing
phenols. Phenol concentrations in the grounwater generally exceed M0E
desirable concentrations for drinking water (2 ppb) and water guality
objectives (1 ppb) .

The concentrations of benzene as well as other aromatic
hydrocarbons (Table 3.1) (toluene, xylene and ethylbenzene) are very
high in the groundwater. Benzene concentrations range from 130 to
65000 ppb and generally exceed Canadian drinking water guidelines of 5
ppb and MOE water guality guideines of 250 ppb. The concentrations
are highest in the bedrock (i.e., KLA-33000 ppb, K3A-65000 ppb) while
monitoring wells closer to surface (i.e., KLB-130 and K2-1200 ppb) are
lower. The differences are likely due to volatilization. In the
bedrock, the aromatic hydrocarbons and vapours that may be generated
are contained by the rock while in shallower water table wells the
groundwater is in contact with the air and volatilization, resulting in
a decrease in concentration, can readily occur. A similar affect is
seen in the other aromatic hydrocarbons. An example of this is in well
K2, which contains free coal tar and is a water table well but has
relatively low concentrations of aromatic hydrocarbons as compared to
deeper bedrock wells such as K1A or K3A. The bedrock restricts the
vertical migration of the vapours from the aromatic hydrocarbons and
this is a likely reason why the soil gas sampling did not detect more
widespread contamination.

INTERS^

TABLE 3.1 CONCENTRATION OF VOLATILE PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
IN GROUNDWATER (ppb)

COMPOUND

K6A-1

HDL

ru-1

K3A-1

K5A-1

KDL

riB-i

BENZENE

26000

200

33000

65000

25000

100

130

1200

BR0HO01CHL0ROKETHANE

100

SRonoroM

400

200

BROWNE THAKt

3200

1600

CARBON TETRACHLORIDE

400

200

■

CHLCR08E*ZE)t£

200

100

CHLOROETHANE

2000

1000

2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER

2000

1000

•

CHLOROfORK

200

450

100

CHLWWeTHANE

1 0000

•

5000

DIBROHQCHL0R0HETHANE

200

100

1 ,2-0rCHL0«CE*MZ£Kt

•

200

100

1,3-BlCHLOJtOKNZENE

200

100

•

l,4-DJCHL0R0BENZ£N£

200

100

l.HlCHLOROETHYLENE

200

100

•

1,1-DICHL0R0€THAX£

200

100

•

1 , 2-9 ICW.DRDETHANE

400

200

TRANS*l,2-DICHL0ROETHYLEN€

200

100

■

DICHLORQKETHANE

3000

1500

—

■

l,2-DICHL0R0PR0PANE

200

too

C1S-I,3-D1CHL0R0PR0PENE

200

100

TRANS- t , 3-D ICHLORQPROPEHE

200

100

•

ETHYL8ENZENE

1 0000

200

1000

2900

2B0

100

160

290

A-NETHYLSTYREHC

200

100

HETNYLSTYRENE ISOMERS

1100

200

BOO

580

420

100

176

KESITYLENE

200

100

1,1,2, 2-TETRACHL0R0ETHAHE

400

200

TETRACHIOROETHYLENE

200

100

TOLUENE

22000

400

19000

24000

9800

200

170

450

1,1,1-TRJCHLOROETHANE

400

200

1,1, 2-TRICHL0R0ETHAME

200

100

TRICHLOROETHYLEME

200

100

TRlCltLQROfLUOROHETHANE

400

200

IW-NLfit

5700

200

3200

4000

1100

100

190

220

0-XYLENE

2100

200

1100

1700

550

100

120

100

VINYL CHLORIDE

2400

•

1200

OTHER AROMATIC COMPOUNDS

2600

200

600

730

190

100

220

320

JTYRfNE

5500

400

6900

6000

5000

200

110

880

ML • METHOD DETECTION LIMITS

OTHER AROMATIC COMPOUNDS ■ Total concentration o! trluthylbenzeoef

using the response f *c tor of leiitjrltne.

Naphthalene and benzo(a)pyrene are both polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons but have different physical and chemical properties.
Naphthalene with a molecular weight of 128 is soluble in water to 32
ppm, has a high volatilization and relatively low adsorption.
Benzo(a)pyrene has a molecular weight of 252, a solubility of 3.8 ppb,
a low volatilization and high adsorption. In the groundwater
naphthalene was found in all wells at concentrations ranging from 15 to
1100 ppb due in part to its high solubility. Similarly other PAH that
are relatively soluble such as acenaphthy lene , fluorene, phenanthrene ,
and anthracene are also found in high concentrations. The PAH
concentrations in the groundwater are given in Table 3.2.
Benzo(a)pyrene on the other hand is relatively insoluble and is found
in high concentrations only in wells that contain free product (i.e.,
K6A-65 ppb) . The drinking water and water guality guideline for
benzo(a)pyrene is 0.01 ppb. Similarly other less soluble PAH are not
found in the groundwater at significant concentrations.

In Tables 3.1 and 3.2, the method detection limits are
relatively high because of the high concentrations in the samples. To
guantify the high concentrations it was necessary to dilute the samples
and this raises the detection limit. Low and trace concentrations of
some compounds may go undetected under these circumstances.

In general, the inorganic parameters for the six sampled
wells show little evidence of contamination however without a
background well for comparison it is difficult to assess the potential
extent of contamination. Most of the inorganic parameters are below
drinking water standards.

The contaminant concentrations in the groundwater are attri-
buted to the coal tar found in each borehole. It is possible that
other sources such as solvents from the paint garage or gasoline from a
spill at a nearby gas station may be contributing to the contamination
in the groundwater. Based on the existing information and the presence
of visible tar in the boreholes, other sources of contamination can not
be confirmed.

INTlREv

TABLE 3.2 CONCENTRATION OF POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
IN GROUNDWATER (ppb)

COMPOUND

Kli-l

KIM

K5a-1

K6a-1

HDL

K3a-1

Blank

HOI

K2-1

HDL

ACENAPHTHENE

100

0.8

0.05

MErWHTMENE

120

2500

0.8

260

0.05

110

0.05

ANTHRACENE

290

0.8

0.05

BENMAJANTHRACEVE

0.2

0,3

0.5

110

0.8

O.G

0.05

0,7

0.05

BENZOW * BENZU(K)rLUORANTH£NE

•

0.1

0.8

0.2

0.05

0.2

0.05

&ENIO(A)PYRENE

0.1

0.2

0.8

0.?

0.05

0.2

0.05

BENZQ<6H1)PERYLENE

1.5

O.t

0.1

:hrysene

0.2

0,3

0.3

0.B

o.s

0.05

0.4

0.05

DIBEN7.(A,H)ANTHRACENE

1.5

0.1

FLUORANTHENE

2.1

3.7

2.3

160

0.8

4.5

0.05

FLUORENE

370

0.8

0,05

0.05

INDEN0(i,2,3-C0)PYRENE

1.5

0.1

NAPHTHALENE

1100

0.8

210

0.05

270

0.05

PHENANTHRENE

1000

0.8

0.05

PYRENE

3.1

5.5

260

0.8

5.8

0.05

6.3

0.05

HDL * HETHOD DETECTION LINN

RECOVERY OF SURROGATE STANDARDS

CONFOUND

D8-NAPHTHALENE
310-ANTHRACENE
D10-rLU0RANTHENE
M2-PERYIENE

Kla-1 Klb-1 K5a-1

K6a-1

100

76.5

67.8

80.9

71.6

63.7

57.9

74.5

«#

K3a-

100
68.7
62.4

Lib

Blank

57.8
90.7
79.2

81.6

K2-1

100
76.7
52.9

3 * Recovery not determined due to high concentration of native naphthalene.

66
3.3.3 Sediment and Surface Water Quality

Sediment and surface water samples were collected from Anglin
Bay and Lake Ontario to assess the potential impact of coal tar waste
or contaminated groundwater discharging to these surface waters. The
sampling locations are shown in Figure 2.6 and consisted of sediment
samples from Anglin Bay at the end of King Street and from Lake Ontario
at the end of Queen Street and water samples from Anglin Bay, Lake
Ontario and a background sample from the LaSalle Causeway Bridge. The
PAH analytical results for the sediment samples are given in Table 3.3
and the surface water in Table 3.4.

The Anglin Bay sediment sample (K-sed-1) has higher
concentrations than the Lake Ontario sample (K-sed-2) . The total PAH
concentration in the Anglin Bay sediments is 16.2 ug/g while in Lake
Ontario the total PAH equals 3.8 ug/g. The PAH in the sediments are
made up of the more strongly adsorbed PAH (i.e., benzo(a)pyrene,
benz (a) anthracene, f luoranthene) . The more soluble components of PAH,
if present in the sediments, would likely be leached into the surface
water. While the concentration of PAH in the Anglin Bay sediments are
higher than in Lake Ontario it is difficult to determine if these
elevated levels indicate contamination from coal tar or result from
other sources. It is possible that other sources such as storm water
runoff, fallout from air emissions (i.e., furnace, fireplace,
automobiles), or recreational use (i.e., boating) may contribute to the
PAH loading in the Bay. Based on a single, one point sampling it is
impossible to determine the nature of the PAH contamination in Anglin
Bay but these low levels are likely representative of background
concentrations for sediments in an urban environment. The Lake Ontario
r-ediments are considered to be at background levels for PAH.

IfSTTtRSs.

TABLE 3.3 ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SEDIMENT SAMPLES

CONCENTRATION OF POLYCYCLlC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS IN SOIL
u9/g

COMPOUND

ACENAPHTHENE

ACENAFrlTHYLENE

ANTHRACENE

3ENZ(A)ANTHRACENE

BENZO(B) ♦ 8EMO(K)FLUORAN7HENE

BU,'0(A)PYRENE

BENZO(SHI)PERYLENE

CHRrJENE

OIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE

FLUQRAN7HENE

TLUORENE

INPENO(l,2,3-C0)PYR£NE

NAPHTHALENE

PHENANTHRENE

PYRENE

K-SED

Lab

-I

-2

NDL

ei*n

HDL

0.3

0.2

0.02

0.2

0.02

0.?

•

0.2

0,02

1.3

0.2

0.02

1.3

0.5

0.2

0.02

I.S

0.5

0.2

0.02

0.4

0.04

1.4

0.7

0.2

o. r.

0.4

0.04

1,8

0.8

0.2

0.02

0.4

0.2

o.o:

0.8

0.4

0.04

0.2

0.04

0.02

2.2

0.2

0.02

0,7

C-L

0,62.

Mi i METHOD DETECTION LIMIT

COMPOUND

D8 -NAPHTHALENE
MO-ANTHRACENE
OiQ-fLUORANTHENE
DI2-PERYLENE

RECOVERY OF SURROGATE STANOARDS

(Z)

K-SED

L*b

-t

-2

Blank

26.8

51.3

70.1

54.9

74.6

67.5

72.5

70.3

84.3

100

61.6

» = Recovery not determined due to necessary dilution of extract,

TABLE 3.4 ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SURFACE WATER SAMPLES

CONCENTRATION Of POLTCYCIIC ARONATIC HYDROCARBONS IN HATER
ppb

K-SURF K-SURf K-SURF Lib
COMPOUND -I -2 -3 8Unk HDL

AttHAPHTHENE - - - 0.03

ACENAPHTHYLENE - - - 0.03

ANTHRACENE .... 0.03

8ENZ(A)ANTHRACEKE . . . . 0.05

BEHZO(B) » KMZOWrUKKANTHENE .... 0.05

6ENZQ(A)PYREN£ .... 0iC5

B£NZ0<6HI)PERYIEN£ - - • - 0.1

CHRYSENE - - - - 0.05

0!BEXZ(A,H)ANTHftACENE - - - - 0.1

FLUORANTHENE .... 0.05

FLUORENC .... o.05

IW>£K0(1,2,3-CD)PYREKE - - - - 0.1

NAPHTHALENE - • - - 0.05

PHENANTHRENE - - - - 0.05

PYREHC .... 0>05

m • METHOD DETECTION UNIT

COMPOUND

08-HAPHTKALENE
01 ANTHRACENE
DIO-FLUORANTHENE
D12-PERYLEXE

RECOVERY Of SURROGATE STANDARDS

K-SURF

Lib

-1

-2

-3

81 ink

66.3

67.1

68.7

67.6

SO. 4

85.6

S6.3

63.1

84.8

81.9

63.1

83. 4

98.2

100

INTCREv

The results of trace metals concentrations (Appendix D) in
the sediments are consistent with, although slightly lower than,
previous samples collected by MOE (1985) . The results for trace metals
in the sediments are typical of sediments in an urban environment.

The PAH concentrations for the surface water samples
(Table 3.4) were all non-detectable indicating that if coal tar waste
or contaminated groundwater was discharging to the surface waters they
are not having a measurable impact on the general water guality.

Inorganic parameters (Appendix D) did not indicate elevated

levels of any parameters in the surface waters and both samples were

consistent with the background sample collected from the laSalle
Causeway Bridge.

3.3.4 Building Sump Quality

Curing the inspection of the building sumps a slight odour of
coal tar was detected in the main sump of the police station. All
other sumps were free of odours. The police station sump is located in
the boiler room in the southwest corner of the building and when the
cover was lifted off the sump there was a slight but noticeable coal
tar odour coming from the sump pit. The sump pit has two pipes
discharging into it, one from the west side and one from the north.
Water was flowing into the sump from both pipes at a total rate of
about 90 - 180 L/roi11- The sump pump was running continually during the
sampling and was discharging the water to the sanitary sewer. Water
samples were collected from each of the pipes discharging in the sump
and analyzed for PAH only.

The analytical results for the two samples are given in
Table 3.5. Both samples have low level concentrations of PAH with
total PAH concentrations of about 13 ppb. The PAH compounds present

IffltASl

TABLE 3.5 ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR BUILDING SUMP SAMPLES

CONCENTRATION OF POLYCYCLIC AROftATIC HYDROCARBONS IN HATER

ppb

SUMP Lib
compound west north n«' «ol

ACENAPHTHENE

8.3

9.5

0.05

ACENAFHTHYLENE

1.1

0.05

ANTHRACENE

O.I

0.2

0.05

BENMJAKTHRACENE

0.06

0.05

eENZO(B)FLUORAKTKEKE

8ENZ0WFLU0RANFHENE

0.05

8ENZ0<A)PYRENE

0.05

BENZQ<6H!)PERYIENE

0.1

CHRYSENE

0.05

DIBENZ(A,K}AKTtffiACEHE

0.1

FlUCRANTHENE

0.9

0.05

FlUORENE

0.1

0.8

0.05

INDEN0(I,2,3-CD)PYRENE

0.1

NAPHTHALENE

1.5

0.05

PHEKANTHRENE

0.2

0.5

•

0.05

PYRENE

1.1

0.05

wi ■ nerHoo detection likit

TJ * TRACE

Total concentration of ben:otb>- and tsnzo(k>flucrarthene is shown
In the rev for benzotk)fluorinihe.*.£.

COMPOUND

RECOVERY OF SURROGATE STANDARDS

(X)

Lib
Blank

53.2

52.7

92.7

100

89.9

79.9

78.2

81.9

74.2

71.8

87.1

D8 -NAPHTHALENE
D10-ANTHRACENE
010-FlUORANTrOE
C!2-fERYLENE

INTTniV

in the samples are the more soluble PAH with acenaphthene at
highest concentrations. The heavier molecular weight PAH compounds
were generally not detected in the sump samples.

The sump samples indicate that contaminated groundwater is
entering the foundation drains. The foundation drains which are
probably laid around the perimeter of or beneath the building will
collect the groundwater in the proximity of the building. Because the
monitoring wells adjacent to the building (i.e., K3A, K1A and K1B) are
contaminated it is expected that the building foundation drains will
also collect contaminated groundwater. The monitoring wells adjacent
to the building have much higher concentrations than the sump samples.
In the building sump, continual flushing has likely removed most of the
free tar in the foundation drains and therefore the water discharging
to the sump will only contain the more soluble PAH.

3.4 WASTE SOURCE AREAS

3.4.1 Waste Source Identification

Based on all of the site investigations including:

• Historical Review

• Radar Survey

• Soil Gas Sampling

• Drilling and Soil Sampling
p Groundwater Sampling

it is possible to define waste source areas on the former Kingston gas
plant site and to provide an indication of the extent of contamination.

The waste sources are defined primarily on the historical
review simply because most of the potential sources could not be
adequately explored due to the presence of buildings constructed in
these locations.

INTTTirv

The following paragraphs, in association with Figure 3.10,
and Figures 3.1 and 3.2 identify and describe the potential sources of
on-site coal tar wastes.

Relief Gas Holder - FUC Paint Shop

The relief gas holder, located in the PUC paint shop was
likely the first gas holder constructed on the site. The relief gas
holder would have been used to store raw gas prior to cleaning and
therefore might contain tar residue on its base. The outline of the
gas holder is still apparent in the floor of the garage. Evidence of
coal tar waste as determined by soil gas sampling has been found on the
surface of the tank, and on both the north and south side of the
building. Obvious tar was found on the soil gas probe in a test hole
south of the gas holder.

The gas holder in the PUC paint garage is considered to be a
definite source of coal tar on the property.

Relief Gas Holder - PUC Repair Garage

The relief gas holder, located under the PUC repair garage
was likely used as a main gas holder in association with the gas holder
in the paint garage and as a relief gas holder in association with the
smaller gas holder in the Barrack-Place D'Armes block. There is no
obvious evidence of the location of the gas holder. The repair garage
has had hydraulic hoists and electrical lines installed into the floor
of the garage and therefore the floor area could not be probed for
evidence of coal tar wastes. It is not known if wastes were
encountered during the installation of the hydraulic hoists. Soil gas
holes adjacent and to the east of the building did not detect organic

IMT7IHV

KING STREET

LJJ

t-
V)

1—

PAINT E

•

I-
MQ2'

EPKtR GARAGE

— J •

KINGSTON POLCE BLDG

o
<

ONTARIO STREET

FORT FRONTENAC

SCALE 1cm = 15. 5r

INTtRf\ Technologic

FORMER GAS PLANT - KINGSTON
Potential Waste Source Locations

Figure 3.10

[

[
1

vapours or other evidence of coal tar wastes. Hie monitoring well K5A
located in the same area had obvious indications of coal tar in the
bedrock and had the highest PAH concentrations of all sampled wells.

Although there is no physical evidence to indicate coal tar
waste in this area the gas holder is considered to be a likely source.

Condenser House - PUC Repair Garage/Office

The condenser house was located in the area of the PUC office
adjacent to the repair garage. The condenser house would have
contained the tar wells and tar tanks. Historical maps did not show
exact locations of the tar tanks but this area is the most likely
location. The site investigations did not reveal any evidence of the
tar tanks or tar wells but the area could not be adequately explored
because of the present land use.

The area of the condenser house can not be shown to contain
the tar tanks but this area is suspected as a possible source of coal
tar wastes.

Relief Gas Holder - PUC Bus Transit Garage

The large relief gas holder located in the Barrack - Place
D'Armes block was initially a main gas holding tank used in association
with the smaller relief gas holders. When the large main gas holder
was constructed on the corner of King and Place D'Armes the gas holder
would have been converted to a relief tank. As a relief gas holder it
would have contained raw gas prior to cleaning and therefore the base
of the tank may contain tar wastes. The gas holder is now covered by
the PUC bus transit garage and was identified in the radar survey. The
gas holder was explored in its center using a soil gas test hole which
did not detect high concentrations of organic vapours. Borehole Kl
located east of the gas holder intersected free coal tar during the
drilling and monitoring well K1B was found to contain free tar.

USfTtRN

The relief gas holder is considered to be a likely source of
coal tar waste based primarily on its historical use, the radar survey,
and evidence of free tar in the shallow well at KL.

Main Gas Holder - Corner King and D/Armes

The main gas holder is located on the corner of King and
Place D'Armes in what is now a gravel parking lot. The perimeter wall
is visible in several locations in the parking lot. During drilling of
borehole K2 approximate 60 cm of free tar was found at the bottom of
the tank.

Based on the thickness of tar on the bottom of the tank and
the large diameter of the tank the main gas holder is considered to b
a major source of coal tar waste on the gas plant property.

3.4.2 Extent of Contamination

Each of the boreholes drilled on-site and the one off-site
borehole encountered coal tar waste and contaminated groundwater. The
on-site boreholes were located at the four corners and the centre of
the original gas plant and therefore the entire property is considered
to contain coal tar wastes. The one off-site borehole confirms that
wastes have migrated off-site. With coal tar wastes at the four
corners of the site it is also likely that coal tar waste and/or
contaminated groundwater are migrating off-site in other locations as
well. Because all of the boreholes encountered coal tar, the extent of
contamination can not be accurately defined. As a minimum the extent
of contamination includes the two block area containing the gas plant
property as indicated in Figure 3.11 but the outer limit is presently
unknown.

iKrrcniv

•■ »» «. «

■

Evidence of coal tar contamination as reported in 1986 was
not found in the area of the storm sewer excavation on King Street,
north of Place D'Armes. Borehole K6 located in this area did not find
coal tar in the shallow overburden where the storm sewer is located but
only in the bedrock. A soil gas test hole adjacent to the sewer line
found background levels of organic vapours in the soil. In the
inspection of the only storm sewer manhole in the area odours or
evidence of coal tar seepage were not detected. The sediment sample
collected in the area of the sewer outfall in Anglin Bay had low level
concentrations of PAH but the source of the PAH can not be definitely
attributed to the gas plant. In summary, there is no evidence to
confirm that coal tar contamination was present in the storm sewer
excavation. Based of the geology of borehole K6 which contains clay
and clay till in the overburden it is unlikely that if tar was found in
this area it migrated through the soil. It is possible that the
excavated tar was disposed in this area during the operation of the
plant and is of limited extent.

Off-site migration of coal tar and contaminated groundwater
may be affected by the following factors:

• Dip of bedding planes;

• Orientation of joints;

• Influence of the sanitary trunk sewer;

• Influence of the police station sump.

The dip of the bedding planes is likely towards the south -
southwest. Free coal tar may migrate off -site in this direction by
gravity flow along the bedding planes. Ihe rate of migration and the
extent of contamination will depend on a number of factors including
the volume of source material, the aperture and continuity of the
bedding planes, and the magnitude of the gravity gradient.

IISTTUI^

Similarly, off-site migration may occur preferentially in the
direction of major joint sets. With four major joint sets in the
bedrock, it is difficult to predict which set will have the greatest
influence for off -site migration. Factors such as joint spacing,
continuity and aperture will control the migration direction.

The sanitary trunk sewer which runs along Ontario Street and
up Place D'Armes may act as an interceptor for tar migration because of
its depth in the bedrock. The invert elevation of the trunk sewer is
typically at about 72.56 m ASL or about 6 m below ground. At this
depth, it is below the zones of contamination found in several
boreholes. In borehole Kl adjacent to the trunk sewer coal tar
contamination including free tar was found from about 3 to 6 m below
surface. If the free tar is migrating towards the trunk sewer it will
collect in the bedding material surrounding the sewer which is more
permeable than the rock itself. If sufficient tar accumulates in the
bedding material the tar may migrate along the bedding material in the
downhill direction. The flow in the sewer is directed north along
Ontario Street and then west along Place D'Armes and therefore tar
migration may occur in the same direction. It is also possible that
tar will simply collect in the bedding material and then migrate out
the other side of the bedding material back into the bedrock if the
bedrock is sufficiently permeable. Migration along the sewer bedding
material however is more likely to occur.

If the trunk sewer is collecting tar and migration along the
sewer bedding material is occurring this may account for the off-site
contamination in monitoring well K6A. In the area of King and Place
D'Armes the trunk sewer comes out of the bedrock (i.e., depth to
bedrock increases) and the tar may be migrating down gradient along the
bedrock surface towards K6.

The influence of the police station sump may have a positive
affect on off-site migration in that the sump and foundation drains
will collect contaminated groundwater and possibly free tar,

INTtRN

I
I

Groundwater flow is directed towards the sump because it is the low
point in the groundwater system. The collected groundwater which has
low level PAH contamination is disposed to a sanitary sewer. There was
no evidence of free tar in the sump but it is possible that tar is
collecting under the building and thereby not migrating off-site.

!NTtR\

80
4. ENVTRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

With coal tar wastes identified on-site there is a potential
for environmental impact. The environmental impact can be assessed
based on the potential to cause detrimental effects on human health or
the environment. The potential for environmental impacts can be
considered based on the following:

• direct contact with waste materials;

• air emissions or air quality impacts;

• groundwater quality impacts;

• surface water quality impacts.

Direct contact with the coal tar waste materials can onl
occur if the waste is exposed at surface. At present all of the waste
is below surface and primarily contained in the bedrock and therefore
direct contact with the waste is unlikely to occur. There is a
possibility that tar wastes may seep into sewers or manholes and
contact with utility workers may occur but the inspection of the sewer
manholes did not identify odour or seepage problems at the time of the
inspections. Similarly seepage of tar into the basement of the police
station or into the building sump is also a possibility but again
inspections of the building did not identify this as a problem at the
time of inspection. Because the sump is collecting contaminated
groundwater, it is possible that maintenance workers may, occasionally,
be in direct contact with the contaminated water or air. The levels of
contamination in the water however are low and occasional contact with
the water (other than for drinking) are unlikely to cause adverse
health effects. If the coal tar waste was exposed at surface during
construction or redevelopment of the gas plant property the potential
for direct contact will increase significantly and adverse health
effects may occur.

Impacts on air quality due to buried coal tar wastes are not
apparent at the present time. There are no detectable odours or air

IMT7J7A

emissions associated with the buried waste except in the sump of the
police station. Ihe odours from the sump water are only detectable in
the immediate area of the sump when the sump cover is removed. Impacts
on the ambient air quality in the boiler room are unlikely to be
affected by the odours in the sump providing the sump cover remains in
place because the boiler room is well ventilated with open vents to the
outside.

Significant impacts on air quality may occur if coal tar
waste is exposed at surface during potential construction or
redevelopment of the property.

The groundwater quality in the area of the former gas plant
has been impacted by the coal tar waste. Several organic contaminants
such as benzene and phenols at concentration levels of up to 65,000 and
40 ppb respectively are found in the groundwater at concentrations
that exceed Canadian drinking water guidelines (i.e. 5 ppb for benzene
and 2 ppb for phenols) and MOE water quality guidelines (i.e. 250 ppb
for benzene and 1 ppb for phenols) . Free coal tar as a separate phase
is also present in the groundwater. Impacts on human health are
limited by the fact that the groundwater in the area is not used as a
water supply. The police station sump is discharging groundwater to
the sewer and it is possible that there are other sumps off -site that
have not been identified in the area.

Impacts on surface water quality were not measured by this
study. It is possible that contaminated groundwater and/or free tar
may be discharging to Anglin Bay or Lake Ontario but a more detailed
study of off -site contamination, which was outside the terms of
reference of this study, is required before the degree of environmental
impact on the surface water can be determined. Preliminary samplings
indicates that PAH are not present in the surface waters of Anglin Bay
or Lake Ontario. Sediment sampling from Anglin Bay and Lake Ontario
indicate low levels of PAH in the sediments but it is inconclusive as
to the source of the PAH.

INItAIV

5. PJXX3MMENDATT0NS

The initial site investigations of the Kingston Gas Plant
have identified coal tar contamination in the area bounded by Queen,
Ontario, Place D'Armes and King Streets. Based on this conclusion it
is recommended that additional investigations be conducted outside of
this area to define the extent of contamination and the potential
impacts on groundwater and surface water in the off-site areas. The
detailed investigations should include the following:

• Drilling of additional boreholes and the installation of
monitoring wells (Figure 5.1) in off -site areas to define
extent of contamination particularly between the gas plant
site and Anglin Bay and Lake Ontario.

• Sampling of all monitoring wells (new and existing) and
analysis of samples for contamination indicator parameters
such as PAH (i.e. naphthalene and benzo(a)pyrene) ,
benzene, toluene, xylene and phenols;

• Inspection of sumps in off-site buildings

It is possible that free coal tar and agueous phase
contaminants are migrating to Anglin Bay or Lake Ontario. More detail
investigations of the surface waters are reguired to evaluate the
degree of environmental impact. It is recommended that the following
investigations be completed:

• An inspection of bottom sediments of Anglin Bay and the
harbors in Lake Ontario should be completed to determine
if visible tar is present in the sediments;

INTtRN

rtl

111
DC

ID
UJ

KING

STREET

O
<

CD
Z>
</>

•

PAINT SHOP

— ' o

KINGSTON POLICE BLDG

i ■< ■> y

i—

ONTARIO STREET

FORT FRONTENAC

[

• Hie bottom sediments should be sampled with the collection
of samples from Anglin Bay, samples each from the harbors
in Lake Ontario and one sample from a background location
(Figure 5.1) ;

• Sediment samples should be analyzed for contaminant
indicator parameters such as PAH (i.e. naphthalene,
benzo(a)pyrene) , trace metals, and cyanide;

• Surface water samples (Figure 5.1) should be collected
from Anglin Bay and each of the harbors and Lake Ontario
and analyzed for contaminant indicator parameters such as
PAH, benzene, toluene, xylene, phenols and trace metals.

Coal tar and contaminated groundwaters have been found on the
former gas plant property. At present, the buried waste or
contaminated groundwater does not present a health hazard to users of
the property. However, if construction or redevelopment of the
property is planned then the potential for exposure may increase. It is
recommended that any construction or redevelopment in the area of the
former gas plant that disturbs the subsurface be completed with caution
and only with the direction of the Ministry of the Environment.

Groundwater entering the building sump in the police station
was found to contain trace levels of PAH. The contamination is
presently at low levels and is being disposed to the sanitary sewer.
The following are recommendations for this problem:

• the sump water be sampled twice yearly (spring and fall)
and the samples analyzed for PAH, benzene, toluene, xylene
and phenols in order to provide monitoring of the
contamination levels.

iNTtiuv

85
6.0 REFERENCES

Bawden, W.F., 1970. The Fracture Fabric of Paleozoic and Precambrian
Rocks in the Kingston area and Its Influence on Their
Properties as Engineering Materials. B.Sc. Thesis, Queen's
University, Kingston, Ontario.

Clark, P.J., 1959. A Reconnaissance Study of Joints in Precambrian and
Paleozoic Rocks Near Kingston. M.Sc. Thesis, Queen's
University, Kingston, Ontario.

ERT, 1983. Recommended Plan for a Comprehensive Solution of the

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon Contamination Problem in the

St. Louis Park Area, Appendix I. Environmental Research and
Technology Inc., Concord, MA, Document P-B690-161.

ERT, 1984. Handbook on Manufactured Gas Plant Sites. Report prepared
for Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, Superfund Committee
Washington, D.C. by Environmental Research and Technology,
Inc. and Koppers Co. Inc.

Freeze, R.A. and J. A. Cherry, 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall Inc.,
Englewcod Cliffs, New Jersey.

Intera Technologies Ltd., 1987. Inventory of Coal Gasification Plant
Waste Sites in Ontario, Volumes I and II. Report Prepared
for Ontario Ministry of the Environment. April.

Liberty, B.A. , 1971. Paleozoic Geology of Wolfe Island, Bath, Sydenham
and Gananoque Map Areas, Ontario. GSC Paper 70-35.

Lyman, J.W., W.F. Reehl and D.H. Rosenblatt, 1982. Handbook of

Chemical Property Estimation Methods - Environmental

Behaviour of Organic Compounds. McGraw-Hill Book Co. , New
York, N.Y.

Mackay, D. and W.Y. Shiu, 1977. Aqueous solubility of polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons. J. Chem. Eng. Data., Vol. 22, No. 4,
pp. 399-402.

Malcolm, J.D. , 1980. The Potential for Underground Development in the
Kingston Area. B.Sc. Thesis, Queen's University, Kingston,
Ontario.

McAuliffe, 1963. Nature. Vol. 200, pp. 1092-1093.

National Bureau Standards, 1981. Certificate of Analysis for Stand.
Ref. Material 1647.

nurcniv

REFERENCES (cont'd)

Occupational Health Program McMaster University, 1986. Health Effects
of Coal Tar Products and Bitumens. Submitted to Ontario
Ministry of Labour Special Studies and Services Branch.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 1985. Sediment Chemistry at
Kingston. Unpublished data.

Pearlman, R.S., S.H. Yalkowski and S. Barjeree, 1983. Water
Solubilities of Polynuclear Aromatic and Heteroaromatic
Compounds.

Peterson, N.W. , 1969. Carbonate Petrology, Structure and Stratigraphy
of the Middle Ordovician Carbonate Rocks in the Vicinity of
Kingston, Ontario. Ph.D. Thesis, Queen's University,
Kingston, Ontario.

Rogers, A., 1926. Manual of Industrial Chemistry, Vol. II, New York.

U.S. EPA, 1980a. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Benzene, U.S. EPA
Report 440/5-80-18, Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA, 1980b. The Carcinogen Assessment Group's List of
Carcinogens. Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA, 1980. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Polynuclear Aromatic
Hydrocarbons. EPA-440/5-80-069, Washington, D.C.

Versar, Inc., 1979. Water-Related Environmental Fate of 129 Priority
Pollutants, Vol. 1 and 2. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C, EPA, 440/4-79-029.

Verschueren, K. , 1983 . Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic
Chemicals. 2nd Ed., Van Nostrand/Reinhold Co., New York.

Wynne-Edwards, H. , 1967. Westport Map- Area, Ontario with Special
Emphasis on the Precambrian Rocks. GSC Memoirs 346.

IISfTTnA

Historical Maps

1865 - fortification survey (Public Archives Canada, NMC 21076, 2/2) ;
1875 - bird's eye view (Public Archives Canada, NMC 22439) blow up;
1908 - fire insurance plan (Kingston Public Utilities Commission)
1911 - revision of 1908 fire insurance plans (Public Archives Canada,

NMC 10707, 5/49 main site; 22/49 auxiliary gas holder)
1924 - fire insurance plan (Kingston Public Utilities Commission)
1928 - block plan of land and buildings owned by Commission

(Kingston Public Utilities Commission)
1948 - block plan of gas holder property (Kingston Public Utilities

Commission)
1963 - fire insurance plan (Public Archives Canada, Kingston Sheet-86) .

Air Photographs

1954, National Air Photo Library No. A13968-44

1955, National Air Photo Library No. A14613-56
1959, National Air Photo Library No. A16531-41
1962, National Air Photo Library No. A17831-39
1981, National Air Photo Library No. A25646-42

Geotechnical Reports

City of Kingston Work's Department - Sewer Maps

1) Place D'Armes - Intercepting Sewer, A263-1

2) Ontario St. - Place D'Armes to Causeway, A318

3) Ontario St. - Intercepting Sewer

4) Queen St. - Ontario St. Easterly, A-352

5) King St. - Place D'Armes, A-332

6) King St. and Wellington St. , A-269

7) Queen St. - Ontario St. to King St.

City of Kingston, Police Headquarters, Chector, Barbacki, Forte and
Associates 1970 Column Schedule and Test Pits

INTER*.

APPENDIX A
Terms of Reference

IMTTRN

INITIAL STUDIES

OF SELECTED COAL GASIFICATION WASTE SITES

IN SOUTHEASTERN ONTARIO:

KINGSTON AND NAPANEE

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

SCHEDULE 1

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

SEPTEMBER 1987

SCHEDULE 1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

1 . 0 BACKGROUND

The Ontario Ministry of the Environment has recently
completed an Inventory of Coal Gasification Plant Waste
Sites in Ontario where coal gas was produced for munici-
pal consumption. The study revealed a total of 41
sites .

At some of these sites, coal tar wastes have already
been found and work is in progress. At the remaining
sites, little or nothing is known about the presence of
wastes. This Reguest for Proposals (R.F.P.) is for
studies at two sites to determine if wastes are present .
at each site, how they occur, to obtain an indication of
their extent on the site, and the likelihood of off-site
occurrence. The two selected sites are: Kingston and
Napanee. A separate proposal is required for each
site .

All detailed work at these two sites is to be confined
to the old gasification plant site, although some
cursory investigation may be necessary off-site.

2.0 CONSULTING ASSIGNMENT

2.1 Objectives

The Ministry requires a study to meet the following
obj ectives :

i) at each site, determine whether or not coal
gasification plant wastes are present;

ii) if present, determine how these wastes occur on

site (in storage tanks, in soil, etc.), and obtain
some indication of their distribution;

iii) if present, determine whether the wastes are

contained, or whether the wastes, or contaminated
water, or both, may be moving off-site.

iv) if present, determine whether or not the wastes
are impacting on, or pose an imminent threat of
impact on, human health and safety, or the
environment, or both.

To meet these objectives, the study will be completed in
two phases. The scope of work to be completed in each
phase is summarized below.

2 -

2.2 SCOPE

Phase 1 Surface Investigations

Prior to the commencement of any work on site, the

Ministry will notify the property owner of the planned

study. The consultant will be responsible for obtaining

permission from the property owner to complete the
necessary work on site.

Proceeding from the available information in the
Inventory of Coal Gasification Plant Waste Sites in
Ontario, Volumes I and II, Phase 1 will involve search-
ing for any buried wastes using visual, olfactory and
geophysical technigues. All possible underground waste
storage locations must be investigated in Phase 2 to
determine the contents of any storage vessels remaining
underground, and the presence or absence of any coal tar
contamination in the soils adjacent to the locations of
former storage vessels. If test drilling, test pitting
and ground water and soil sampling are necessary, Phase
1 will include the selection of initial sites for this
work .

Phase 2 Drilling and Sampling

Prior to commencing work that would disturb any wastes
or open any waste containers at a site, background
measurements of airborne PAH's should be taken.
Distinction should be made between contributions ro
airborne PAH's coming from non coal tar sources and any
coming from existing undisturbed coal tar sources on
site .

Real time measurements of airborne hydrocarbons are
possible in the field using such instruments as photo-
ionization detectors and portable gas chromatographs .
They have proven useful to indicate the presence of
benzene, toluene, xylene and naphthalene in the air.
Although these four hydrocarbon compounds are not PAK ' s ,
they are generally present with coal tars. Air guality
protection standards or provisional guidelines for these
four compounds as well as benzo (a) pyrene are
available. (See Table 1.)

After the exposure of coal tar wastes has commenced, a
field meter should be used not only as an indicator of
coal tar wastes, but also to alert people on-site when
to use respirators and other protective eguipment. The
health and safety protocols, as specified in Schedule 2
item 12.3, must be followed. Appropriate measures
should be taken to protect the ambient air guality
during work at each site.

TABLE 1
AIR QUALITY PROTECTION PARAMETERS')

Hydrocarbon
Compound

Concentration in
ng/m3 Averaged
Over 0.5 Hours

Benzo (a) pyrene

Benzene

Toluene

Xylene

Naphthalene

3.3

10,000

2,000

2,300

Limiting
Effect, Type of
Standard

Health,
Provisional
Guideline at Point
of Impingement
Single Source

Health, Standard
at Point of
Impingement

Odour, Standard

Health,

Provisional

Guideline

Air Resources Branch, M.O.E., as of 87-05-26

Based on the assessment of data from Phase 1, Phase 2 is
to obtain soil, ground water and surface water samples
necessary to confirm whether or not coal tar wastes and
derived contamination are present at the site. If they
are, Phase 2 is also to obtain an indication of their
extent and whether or not they may be moving off-site.
All excavations, both drilled and dug, should be sampled
and logged continuously with depth. Any dug pits or
trenches should be sampled at horizontal intervals no
greater than 5 metres. The depth explored should take
into account the heavier-than-water seepage character of
most coal tar fractions.

Unless previous evidence indicates conclusively that
there is no existence of wastes on site, test holes
should be drilled and sampled at least along the site
boundaries. The soil around all inhabited buildings
must be checked. A temporary monitoring well should be
installed in each of the test holes to indicate ground
water levels and quality.

Sewer beddings and other buried utility lines are
potential conduits for collection and migration of
contaminants

All on-site ul

ity lines should be

entering storm sewers, the sewer water and sediments
must be sampled.

If wastes can be seen in soils at the site boundaries,
then they will be considered likely to be moving off-
site. No detailed work is reguired off-site for this
study, unless the wastes or derived contamination pose a
risk of imminent impact on human health and safety. If
so, the likely extent of this impact should be reported
immediately to the Ministry.

If no wastes are seen in the soils, but it is suspected
that contaminated ground water may be moving off-site
and threatening existing or anticipated ground water
supplies, then monitoring wells should be installed and
sampled to remove this uncertainty.

To obtain a first approximation of the extent of coal
tar contamination, visual and olfactory evidence can be
used. However, where there is reasonable doubt as to
whether the type of tar contamination is of coal or
petroleum origin, laboratory analysis of selected
generic samples is reguired to enable distinction. The
criteria for distinction must be specified. To
determine the level of ground water contamination, the
hydrochemistry parameters listed in Table 2 should be
considered as basic. Others may be added by the
consultant, but costs must be kept to a minimum.

E
[
[
[

TABLE 2. HYDROCHEMISTRY PARAMETERS

Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Potassium

Trace Metals

Alkalinity

Bicarbonate

Sulphate

Sulphide

Chloride

Cyanide

Ammonium

TKN

COD

TOC

Phenols

Volatiles:

Benzene
Toluene
Naphthalene

PAHs:

Benzo (a) Pyrene

In addition to the above objectives and scope applying
at all sites, the following site-specific guestions must
be answered:

At the Kingston site, what is the type and extent of
the tar contamination that was found in a sewer
excavation in 1986 on King Street north of Place
d'Armes Street? Is contamination from this area
likely to reach Lake Ontario?

South of Barrack Street on the Kingston site where two
gas holders were located, a cracking wall and a sloping
floor slab suggest hazards of structural instability and
toxic vapours may be present. Appropriate safety
measures must be taken throughout the study as
stipulated in Schedule 2.

Future plans for the Napanee site vicinity include
excavations for bank stabilization along the Napanee
River and the construction of a boat ramp at the
site. Are there any coal tar wastes along the river
bank, and could the excavation activities cause them
to enter the river? Do coal tar wastes occur in the
Napanee River sediments? Is contaminated ground
water discharging into the river? Regarding the
safety of inhabited buildings in the site vicinity,
could possible underground coal tar wastes or
contaminated ground water or fumes enter the welding
shop, the Odd Fellows Hall, or the home for senior
citizens? Do coal tar wastes occur near the Center
Street bridge as suggested in the inventory report
identified earlier?

Following the completion of on-site work at each site,
the consultant will be responsible for restoring the
site to its original condition to the proprety owner's

satisfaction .

At the end of Phase 2, and prior to report preparation,
a meeting will be held to review the results and confirm
the content and organization of each final report.
Additional meetings reguired during the course of the
study will be arranged as the need arises.

2.3 REPORTING

The results of the study will be documented in a
separate report for each site. Each report will
contain, among other things:

A base map showing the location of the site.

A site plan for the site showing:

i) all waste prospects identified from such sources
as plant layouts, visual and olfactory evidence
and geophysical evidence;

ii) locations of test holes, pits, trenches and
monitor wells;

iii) confirmed locations of wastes from visual

evidence, soil sampling and ground water sampl-
ing; and

iv) delineation of the extent of the wastes, (show-
ing whether or not they are confined to the

sire) .

A geologic log for each test hole, pit and trench.
Geologic logs of pits and trenches should be taken
at lateral intervals of no more than 5 metres along

A construction diagram for each monitor well,
including the elevation of its measuring point
relative to the other monitor wells and pertinent
features .

Tables showing the parameters for which laboratory
analyses were performed on soil and water samples,
and the analysis results.

A discussion of what investigative work was done,
what was found, and recommendations for what further
detailed studies and remedial work might be
necessary .

During all phases of the study, the consultant will be
responsible for providing verbal status reports to Ulo
Sibul at (416) 323-5162.

Thirty copies of the final report are reguired.

3.0 CONTENT OF THE PROPOSALS

Each proposal should contain, among other things,

Specific discussions of study methods and procedures
to be used in the study, including geophysical
methods, air guality monitoring methods, drilling
methods, monitoring well construction methods, soil
and ground water sampling, preserving and laboratory
analysis methods. The laboratory to be used for
soil and water samples must be identified. The
Ministry laboratory is not available. The
laboratory criteria to be used to distinguish coal
tar contamination from petroleum contamination must
be identified.

A description of the protocols to be followed to
preserve and protect the health and safety of
workers and the public consistent with the Ministry
of Labour requirements and the Occupational Health
and Safety Act.

A description of the role of each member of the
study team, including subcontractors. Curriculum
Vitae and summaries of relevant experience should be
included. Relevant company experience of both the
main contractor and any subcontractors is also
reguired. Note that team members specified in each
proposal will be expected to participate throughout
the study.

Substitutions to those named to the initial study team
are not acceptable without the prior approval of the
Ministry of the Environment.

8 -

realistically achievable. In setting up this
schedule, please note that the Ministry considers
the assessment of buried coal gasification plant
wastes a high priority and wants to see the study
expedited accordingly.

A listing of per diem (not hourly) rates for each

member of the study team, charging practices for

travel and out-of-pocket expenses, supplies, word
processing, graphics, printing, etc.

A detailed outline of proposed costs for each phase
of work, including allotted man-days per team
member .

The estimated total cost of the complete assignment.
The estimated total cost of the assignment is to
include all miscellaneous costs, as well as
allowances for normal potential extra costs.

Acknowledgement of the Letter of Agreement
(attached) which must be signed prior to letting of
the contract. Proposals must indicate acceptance of
the agreement or clearly state items that are
unacceptable and suggested modifications.

While the study approach, phasing and reporting outlined
in this RFP represent the views of the Ministry,
modifications or changes suggested with justification by
the consultants will certainly be considered.

4.0 SUBMISSION AND EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

The written proposals will serve as the basis for the
selection of a consultant to conduct the studies. A
bidder's meeting will be held on h/lptitfrV per ■ '^
1983- at W'.QO ft'*^ in the 6th Floor Boardroom at 40 St .
Clair Avenue West, Toronto, during which the studies
will be discussed.

Proposals should be directed to:

Purchasing Office

The Ontario Ministry of the Environment

5th Floor, 135 St. Clair Avenue West

Toronto, Ontario

M4V 1P5

Deadline for their receipt is Wlov3b*n OCT- 2 k 198^-

at 3-QQ r-uo^ Please submit five copies for each site
to help us expedite proposal evaluation.

Proposals will be evaluated according to the following
criteria :

- 9

1. Thoroughness, clarity and completeness.

2. Study approach and methodology.

3. Previous experience, gual if ications and expertise
of the members of the proposed study team.

4. Where applicable, previous performance on Ministry
contracts .

5. Time frame.

6. Where two or more proposals satisfactorily meet the
preceeding criteria, the cost given in the
proposals will be taken into consideration in
selecting the successful bidder. The Ministry of
the Environment reserves the right not to select
the lowest bidder.

CB/mq
Attachment

September 8, 1987
TA 04 11
1445SCH1KING

APPENDIX B
Ground Probing Radar Survey

ifcnrnrv

UJ
QJ
DC

(f)
O

./I

' V

y' — -V

>^"*\

BARRACK STREET

UJ
LU
DC

H
z

QUEEN STREET

Drmm by

OvKt^d by

R«vI«Jon«

OaU

0<K.

OaU

I NTEHA Technologies

SITE MAP SHOWING LOCATION OF GROUND
PENETRATING RADAR SURVEY LINES

SCALE 1cm= 10.2m

Figure B- 1

-^/^L^

Af~\f*\/&*£5~2£-

S-
13
CO

.— s_

• "O

O tl

a> en

_J -O
O
« J-
C Q.
O
+-> XJ

to c
en 3
C O
■i- S-
S*C CD

ru
O

o
s_
a.
a.

S-

a.
en

ro
M-

3
CO

.*:

o
o

S-

•o

+->

-C

en
a>
a:

0)
J)

en
_o

c
.c
o
©

wr>

— ^\^W^

^MaAj'wk^'

fV-\^-^

-O

-Q

JkJ

C^-

l/l

<+-

#—

4->

1 —

«a

<+-

<^0

•

i —

•1 —

•r—

■a

•

•*

•a:

<+-

S-

</>

■o

-Q

+->

-O

l/l

Jki

«J

^—

•o

f— i-

• X)

o ro

2: S-
cj en

•> J_
c= a.
o

+-> T3

CO <Z

en 3

c: o

•r- l_

i^ CD

CO
CD

i-
en

c
x:
o
o

— i

l/l

CM i-

• -o

O 13

CU en
c c

•r— *r-

_J -O

» S-

C CL

+-> T3
</> C
CD 13
C O
•r- S_

i-
3

CD
3

3
1/1

S-

• TD

O <o

z s_

O) en
c c

•f "r—

_! JD

« i-

tz a.
o

+-> "O
l/> c
CD 3

e o

•r- S_
:*i CD

^vyiw^^S

^fe^£

-o

>■>

>
s_

«3- s-

• T3

0 tO
Z S-

cu en
c c

_J XI

• i.

C CL

+-> -o

01 C
CD Z5
C O

•■- S-
^ CD

I
CO

>
S-
3
l/>

in s-

• "O

O rtJ

^ S-

0) en
c c

•I — 'r—

_1 -Q

- S-

C Q.

4-> -O

en ^

c o

•r- S_

i<£ CD

OJ
•I—

4-
o

.£=
o

o
o

Ll_

VD
I

3
C71

E5&3&^

;5^pA^

c
■t->

>
I/)

• "O

O IO

^ s_

O) en
c c

_1 -O

- S-

c a.
o

-(-> -o
CO c
CD =3
C O

■I- i-

n
jo

A\Aa^v-*.

«/*

>
:3

S-
"3
• T3

0 "3

^: s-

CU C7>
C C

_l -O

« S-

C Q-
O

+-> "O

01 £Z

en 3

c o

•r- S_
^i CD

CO
CO

3
to

00 s-

• -o

O fO

z: s-

cu en
c c

_l -Q

» i.

C Q.

00 C

CT> 3

C O

■i- S_

i^ to

I
CO

3
CD

.?
en
jD

APPENDIX C
Borehole Logs and Monitoring Well Completion Details

INTERS

STRATIGRAPHIC AND INSTRUMENTATION LOG

PROJECT NAME AND No. i FORMER GAS PLANT / H88-026

BOREHOLE No i

K - 1

CLIENT- ONTARIO MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

OATE COMPLETED; 23 MARCH 1988

LOCATION KINGSTON, ONTARIO

DRILLING METHOD: 12 in. Auger/HO, Coring

REFERENCE ELEVATION i 78.67 mASL (GROUND SURFACE)

DRILL SUPERVISOR^ R.A. SWEEZEY

DEPTH
m BG

-6

-8

■10

-12

-16

-18

SAMPLE
AND No.

SS-1
SS-2

CR-1

CR-2

CR-3

CR-4

CR-5

CR-6

CR-1
CR-2

CR-3
CR-4
CR-5
CR-6

STRATIGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION
AND REMARKS

ELEVATION

m AMSL

,,'m,;vi^i

FILL

- gravel, asphalt, cinders, ash

- grey and black sand

- It. brown clay

LIMESTONE

- grey, crystalline

- fossil i ferous

- medium bedded

- shale seams

- styolites

- OVM 5-"0 ppm on core

76.99

67.77

NOTES

- no evidence of coal tar or odour

- coal tar on several fractures

- brown blebs oh fracture surfaces

- minor coal tar sheen on some fractures

- no visible coal tar or sheen

PIEZOMETER INSTALLATION
0.75

INTlRDv

Technologies Ltd.

STRATIGRAPHIC AND INSTRUMENTATION LOG

PROJECT NAME AND No. i FORMER GAS PLANT / H88-026

BOREHOLE No.^

K - 2

CLIENT: ONTARIO MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

DATE COMPLETED: 24 MARCH 1988

LOCATION: KINGSTON. ONTARIO

DRILLING METHOD: 12 In. AUGER

REFERENCE ELEVATION: 80. 1 2 mASL (GROUND SURFACE )

DRILL SUPERVISOR: R. A. SWEEZEY

DEPTH
m BG

-2

- 5

-6

SAMPLE
AND No.

SS-1

SS-2

"'■:'-''-;-.'-''-'V'

w)*~M>:l

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

SS-6
SS-7

SS-3
SS-3
SS-6
SS-7

STRATIGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION
AND REMARKS

WATER

TABLE

,-,'Jv ■ >'-*;

FILL

- dark brown clay

- occ. gravel

-OVM 3.S ppm

FILL

- no spoon recovery

- coarse sand and gravel
with large boulders

- approx. 1.5 m dia. void
created during drilling

- filled with limestone
gravel during well
completion

-OVM 3.5-4.5 on sample

FILL

- sand and gravel

- wet

-OVM 5.0 ppm on sample
J SPOON REFUSAL OVM 15-"5 ppm

- inferred bottom of tank
or bedrock

NOTES

- slight tar odour 1.83 - 2.44m

- tar odour on sample

- tar sheen, strong odour

- free tar, v. strong odour

78.32

75.92

72.40

PIE20METER INSTALLATION
0.76

'//

SL.

IfSTTtRDv

Technologies Ltd.

STRATIGRAPHIC AND INSTRUMENTATION LOG

PROJECT NAME ANO No. I F0RMER GAS PLANT H88-026

BOREHOLE No. ■ K-3

CLIENT. ONTARIO MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

OATE COMPLETED; 25 MARCH 1988

LOCATION^ KINGSTON, ONTARIO

DRILLING METHO0.1?IN, HOLLOWSTEM AUGER, HQ CORING

REFERENCE ELEVATION. 78.17 MASL (GROUND SURFACE)

ORILL SUPERVISOR. R,A. SWEEZEY

DEPTH
m BG

-6

-10

-18

CR-3

CR-4

STRATIGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION
ANO REMARKS

ELEVATION
m AMSL

FILL

- brown silty clay

LIMESTONE

- OVM 3-8ppm on core

- grey, finely crystalline

- numerous thin shale seams

- most fractures occur at
shale seams

- sty olltes

- f ossillf erous

SHALY LIMESTONE

67.22

NOTES

minor coal tar odour from 3.0 m to

end of run

distinct coal tar odour, light brown

tar blebs on core

coal tar odour and minor visible

sheen on some fractures

more coal tar than CR-3

v. minor coal tar sheen, may be only

from water circ. during drilling

PIEZOMETER INSTALLATION

0.69

A B

Technologies Ltd.

STRATIGRAPHIC AND INSTRUMENTATION LOG

PROJECT NAME AND No. i FORMER GAS PLANT / H88-026

80REHOLE No. i K - 4

CLIENT: ONTARIO MINISTRY OF THE ENVIROMENT

DATE COMPLETED

26 MARCH 1988

LOCATION: KINGSTON, ONTARIO

DRILLING METHOD: 12 In. AUGER / HQ CORING

REFERENCE ELEVATION i 80.88 mASL (GROUND SURFACE)

DRILL SUPERVISOR: R. A. SWEEZEY

DEPTH
m BG

-2

-4

SAMPLE
AND No.

SS-1

SS-2

CR-1

CR-2

SS-1
SS-2

CR-2

STRATIGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION
AND REMARKS

ELEVATION
mAMSL

FILL

- black ashes, cinders, coal,
minor red brick frags.

grey clay fill with gravel
1 imestone chips
OVM up to 10 ppm on sample
fill and boulders

LIMESTONE

- shaly

- green/grey

- OVM 5-15 ppm

NOTES

- no odours

- visible coal tar on sample

- minor coal tar sheen on fractures

78.66

77.28

PIEZOMETER INSTALLATION

75.71

0.59

_E_

\7A

INTlPA

Technologies Ltd.

STRATIGRAPHIC AND INSTRUMENTATION LOG

PROJECT NAME AND No i FORMER GAS PLANT / H88-026

BOREHOLE No. i

K - 5

CLIENT i ONTARIO MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

DATE COMPLETED Z7 MARCH 1988

LOCATION KINGSTON, ONTARIO

ORILLING METHOO: 12 in. AUGER / HQ CORING

REFERENCE ELEVATION: 79.89 mASL (GROUND SURFACE)

DRILL SUPERVISOR i R. A. SWEEZEr

DEPTH
m 8G

■10

-14

-16

-18

SAMPLE
ANO No.

SS-1
SS-2

CR-1

CR-Z

CR-3

CR-4

CR-5

CR-6

CR-1
CR-2
CR-3
CR-1

STRATIGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION
ANO REMARKS

ELEVATICT.
mAMSL

FILL

- dark brown/black

- sandy, some gravel

- coal frags., some clay

77.71

OVM 3- 7 pom

SILTSTONE

- green/grey

- medium bedded

- fractures assoc. with shale
seams

- occ. styolites

- OVM 5- '0 ppm on core and
drill water

LIMESTONE

- grey

- medium bedded

- numerous shale seams

- styol ites

69.04

NOTES

- tar staining on fracture at 2.82 m

- no visible tar

- minor tar flecks on fractures

- minor tar on most fractures,
significant tar at 6.71 m

- minor tar sheen on some fractures

- minor tar on some fractures

- shale seams have absorbed some tar

PIEZOMETER INSTALLATION

0.71

A B

IfsTTET^v

Technologies Ltd.

STRATIGRAPHIC AND INSTRUMENTATION LOG

PROJECT NAME AND No i FORMER GAS PLANT / H88-026

BOREHOLE No.

K - 6

CLIENT . ONTARIO MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

DATE COMPLETEC- ?R MARCH 1988

LOCATION^ KINGSTON, ONTARIO

DRILLING METHOO' 1? In. AUGER / HO CORING

REFERENCE ELEVATION i

77.38 mASL (GROUND SURFACE)

DRILL SUPERVISOR

R. A. SWEEZEY

DEPTH
m BG

■10

SAMPLE
AMO No.

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3
SS-4
SS-5

SS-6
SS-7

///////,
///////
///////
///////.
///////.
///////
///////
///////.
///////.
///////
///////
///////
///////
///////
///////
///////
///////
///////
///////
///////
///////

CR-1

CR-2

CR-3

CR-1
CR-2

CR-3

STRATIGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION
AND REMARKS

ELEVATICT.

m AMSL

FILL - brown sand

- sand, gravel, coal, brick,
glass, limestone frags.

CLAY

- dark grey, brown mottling

- hard

- wood pieces, organics

75.88

TILL

- sandy with numerous pebbles

- wet

LIMESTONE

- grey, crystalline

- medium bedded

- thin shale and mud seams

- styolites

-OVM 3- ""0 ppm on core

NOTES

- no contamination found in overburden

- minor coal tar odour

- significant coal tar on core

- free coal tar, most noticeable
around 9.5 m

- free coal tar on fractures

70.88

69.88

66.48

PIEZOMETER INSTALLATION
0.56

INTlPA

Technologies Ltd.

ELEV 253. 7

V> i

C/ay

ELEV.240.7-

in : G/"^v€?/

H&n

Bouh/e/s

Poc/c

(0
t

TESTHOLE
Nfi 3f

i<^»*

/-D<x;£

TESTHOLE
M2 33

to>«3.0 — 7

/vbcXr

TESTHOLE

N2 34

ECEV. 259.9

ELEV 2S3.9

«x^

I I

TESTHOLE
Nfi 35

CITY OF KINGSTON TESTHOLES FROM SEWER MAPS

INTtRSl

CITY OF KINGSTON TESTHOLES FROM SEWER MAPS

ELS\ ' Z55.B ■-,

CAS

/cbc£

TESTHOLE
N2 37

-i V , " ft ! K :;. v-

^.2^?<7r>4.

7 >JM • ' -"^ 'i-

< TE-3THOt.£- V%

.x.J. *

ZL.254-3

.1---* t ^;-<

INTERS

APPENDIX D
Sediment and Surface Water Analytical Results

INTERN

NL-3574

Table D-l
Concentration of Inorganic Parameters in Soil Samples (pg/g)

K-SEEV-1

K-SED-1

5800

9600

1530

11,800

35,000

210

400

146

159

114

<0.5/<l

5.5

0.5

0.2

0.5

0.1

Al
Cr
Cu
Fe
Ml
Ni
Pb
Zn
Ag
Cd
CN

Values shown with a "/" are results of duplicate analysis

TABLE D-2 ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SEDIMENT SAMPLES

CONCENTRATION OF POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS IN SOIL
uo/g

COMPOUND

ACENAPHTHENE

ACENAPHTHYLENE

ANTHRACENE

3ENZ(A)ANTHRACENE

BENZO(B) « 8ENZO(K)FLUORAN7HENE

Bn.'ftKAlPYRENE

BENZ0(6HI)PERYLENE

CHCr'JENE

DJBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE

FLUQRANTHENE

("LUORENE

IN?:'N(i(l,2,3-CD)PYRENE

NAPHTHALENE

PHENANTHRENE

PYRENE

K-SEO

K-SED

Lib

-1

-2

KDL

8Unt

KDL

0.3

0.2

0.02

0.2

0.02

0.7

0.2

0.02

1.3

0.2

0.02

1.9

0.5

0.2

0.02

1.5

0.5

0.2

0.02

o.<

0.04

1.4

0.7

0.2

o.o:

0.4

0.04

1.8

0.8

0.2

0.02

0.4

0.2

0.02

0.8

0.4

0.04

0.2

0.04

0.02

2.2

0.2

0.02

0.7

042.

m ■■ METHOD DETECTION LIMIT

COMPOUND

D9 -NAPHTHALENE
DIO-ANTHRACENE
OIO-fLUORANTHENE
D12-PERYLENE

RECOVERY OF SURROGATE STANDARDS

(I)

K-SEO

K-SED

L«b

-1

-2

BUnk

26.8

51.3

70.1

54.9

74.6

67.5

72.5

70.3

84.3

100

61.6

t - Recovery not determined due to necessary dilution of extract.

Table D-3

CONCENTRATION OF MONOCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS IN SOIL

ug/g

COMPOUND K-SED-1 K-SEO-2

BENZENE

CHLOROBENZENE

1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE

1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE

1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE

ETHYLBENZENE

A-METHYLSTYRENE

METHYLSTYRENE ISOMERS

MESITYLENE

TOLUENE

0.06

MtP-IYLENE

O-XYLENE

0.02

STYRENE

OTHER AROMATIC COMPOUNDS

0.06

LAB

BLANK

MDL

0.04

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.02

0.04

0.02

HDL = METHOD DETECTION LIMITS

OTHER AROMATIC COMPOUNDS = Total concentration of triiethylbenzenes

using the response (actor of lesitylene.

1*0 t*JWO*r

Co<wltlir(««t

Sodium
PoUistum

Celdum

rUgowlum

Afcellnfly

Sulfite

CWorid.

Silica

0-PnotphlU

Uilr.l. « NiLriL.

Ammonif

Iron

rWngerxn

Copper

Zinc

C«1or. lro«

Turbidity

Conductivity

ToUl Organic Cerben

Gallon Sum
Anion Sum
Ion R*tlo
X WfTeceftce

TOS (ion sum)
Conductivity (cilc)

Lanoelier InotK

B(c«rbort*t«
Car-bond*

Table D-A Surface Water Quality Analyses - Inorganic

K- Surf- 1 K-StCf-2 K- Surf- 3

mgA

mrj/l

mgA

mgA
mgA (as CeCOJ)
mgA (u OC03)

mgA

mgA.
mgA. («N)
mgA. (IS N)

mgA

mo A.

mgA.

mgA
Color LWU

N.TJU.
|tniho/cm p 25 C

mgA.

meqA.
meoA

mgA
Hmho/cm ff 23 C

(sitiretion 9 4 C)

mgA (»c C.C03)
mgA. («• CaC03)

Water eoluble"
6j6

13
29
6.6
100

u
<o.s

<0.01

0.10

<0.05

0.03

<0.01

tOJOl

0.0)

1.4

258

6.1

5.2

2.32

2.39

0.V7

122

741

631

-0.21

1.0

Total

0.00
0.04
0.01
0.01

Wilor soluble"
6.4
1.3
33
6£
110
03
18
16
<05
<0.01
0.16
<0.05
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
11
1
267
8.4
4.4

2.62

2.70

0.07

1.5

140
276

6.24

0.16

2.1

ToUl

0.06

0.03

<0.01

0.01

Wiltr tclubU"
bb
14
29
6.7
100
69
14
12
<03
«Oj01
0.11
<0.03
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
16
1.4
242

e.o

4.6

2.33

2.42

0.06

1JB

124
244

631

-0.31

ToUl

0.08

0.04

<0.01

o.oi

' All results b«s«d on jampU centrifuged it 2000 RPM for 30 minutes except pH. UrtlfJlly Md wcducUvllyj GOCa

'•\c\xl\* mcktls 0rOn, tnanqQn-esc , copper- and J-hc.^).

TABLE D-5 ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SURFACE WATER SAMPLES

CONCENTRATION Of POLTCYCUC AROrtATIC HYOROCARBOKS IN HATER

ug/L

WKPOUND

K-SURF K-SURf K-SURT
-i -2 -3

AC£KAPHIKEKE

ACcKAPHTHVLEKE

ANTHRACENE

BEK2(A)AKTHRAC£KE

SCKZO(B) ♦ KNZO<K>nOORANTlO£

SEMQ(A)PYKK£

KH0(6HI)PERYUN£

CHRYSEKE

DIBEKZ(A,K)AKTHRACEKc

fLUORANTHEXE

FIWREK

IKD£KQ(l,2f3-C0)PYRCKE

NAPHTHALENE

PHEKANTHRENI

PYREKC

Lib

tU-k

KDC

0.03

0.05

0.1

0.05

O.I

0.05

0.1

0.05

KM. « METPvOD DETECTION LIMIT

COMPOUND

RECOVERY Of SURROGATE STANDARDS

(I)

K-SURF

Ltb

-I

-2

-3

Slink

66.3

67.1

68.7

67.6

SQ.<

S3. 6

S6.3

S3.1

64.8

81.5

83.1

E2.4

S3.2

100

E8-NAPHTHALENE
CiO-AKTHRACEKE
DIO-FLUORAKTHEKE
B12-fERYL£XE

iMTrniv

APPENDIX E
Groundwater Analytical Results

INTlRN

TABLE E-l FORMER GAS PLANT STUDY KINGSTON, ONTARIO
GEOCHEMICAL FIELD PARAMETERS

WELL ~~ pH~~ CONDUCTIVITY TEMPERATURE
NUMBER (umho) (deg C)

K-1A

7.2

1100

10.0

K-1B

6.7

2100

11.0

K-2

7.5

720

8.0

K-3A

7.2

900

13.5

K-5A

K-6A

6.9

1000

10.0

T = NOT

TAKEN

INTER*.

ar-Clegj> 4 Company lid.

Canotek Road

ta, Onlario

;X5

749-2220 Tdex 053-3233

Certificate
of Analysis

BONDAR-CLEGG

Table E-2 Groundwater Inorganic Analytical Results

REPORT: 088-50244.4

PROJECT: mi

SIMPLE
HUKBER

ELEflEN T
UNITS

ppn

PPfi

ppii

PPI!

PPII

ppii

PPII

K1A-1-5

<0.C5

7.50

157

340

L\i

241

K1B-1-5
K2-1-5

(0.05
(0.05

7.1?
7.72

30!
118

SO?

ktt

544

li 3

!20
13

453
183

K3A-1-5

<0.05

7.61

370

451

ID!

K5A-1-5

<0.0i

7.80

159

S85

K6A-1-5

(0.05

7.24

186

■

U dar-Clejy; & Company Ud.

* • Canotck Road

) wa, Ontario

: 8X5

5)749-2220 Telex 053-3233

Table

E-2 (

BONDAR-CLEGG

cont'd)

Certificate
of Analysis

REPORT: 033-50244.4

PROJECT:

HOME

PA6E IB

SftRPLE ELEflEHT
MUIIBER UNITS

CH-

«H3

H tot
PP(!

COD
B/L

C Org.
PPII

Phen
ppjl

ft!

PPfl

ppa

Cr Cu

• 1

H tot

■

K1A-1-5
K1B-1-5

K2-1-5

K3H-5

K5A-1-5

<C,1

(0.1

0.3

(0.!

(0.1

(0.10
(0.10
<0.10

(0.10

(O.io

113
30

3.2

1 f
j * J

5.7

3.3

C 1

0.100
(0.002
0.02C
0.211
0.430

0.59

0.4?
0.4?
1.00
0.19

\0.01
(0.0!
(0,0!
<0.0!
(0.0!

<o.05 :o.ot

(0.0; (COS
(0.05 (0.05
(0.05 (0.05
(0.05 ''0.05

J.20

K6A-1-5

(0.1 (0.10

405

.4 0.102 0.11 (0.0! (0.05

{^dar-Ckgj; & Company iJd.
4) Canotck Road
)fwa, Ontario

8X5
151)749-2220 Telex 053-3233

Certificate
of Analysis

BQNDARCIEGG

Table E-2 (cont'd)

REFORM: 088-50244.4

PROJECT?

BftHPLE

ELEBEHT
WITS

Pb
PPI

III!

pph

PP*

K1A-1-5
111-1-5

K2-1-5

K3A-1-5

K5A-1-5

R4A-1-5

(0.05

D.lfl

(0.05

(0.05
<0.05

0.10
0.10

CIO

<;o.o5

<0.05

(0.05

(0.05
0.05

(0.05
<0.05

(0.05

0.20 (0.05

Table E-3

COKCEKTRATIOK Of VOLATILE PRIORITY POLLUTAKTS IK HAUR

Uj/L

COMPOUND

K6A-1

HDL

KfA-I

K3A-1

K5A-1

KDL

KII-1

K2-1

BEMIEME

26000

200

33000

65000

25000

100

(30

1200

MOWOICKtOROKETKANf

100

BROHOfORK

<00

200

wmwwt

3200

IGOO

mm TETRACHLORIDE

400

•

200

CHLOftQKKZOE

200

•

100

CHLWOETHAXE

2000

1000

2-CHL0R0ETHYI VINYL ETHER

2000

1000

CHLOROfOCM

200

450

100

CHLOROKETHANE

10000

5000

DIBROKQCHL0R0«ETHANE

200

100

1,2-0 ICHLOROKKZEKE

•

200

100

1,3-OlCKLOROBENZENE

20O

100

•1,4-DICHLOROBENZEKE

200

too

1,1-8ICHL0R0ETHYLEKE

200

100

1,1-DlCHLOROETHAXE

200

too

1,2-DICHLOROETHANE

400

200

TRANS'l,2-0ICHLQROETHYLEN€

200

100

DICHLOROffETKAKE

3000

1500

1,2-DlCtt.OROfROPANE

200

100

CIS-ItS-DICHLOROPR0PEKE

200

100

TRAK$-l,3-0ICKLORQPRQP£N£

200

100

ETHYL8ENZEKE

100OO

200

1000

2900

280

100

160

290

A-«£THTlSTYREHE

200

100

NETHYLSIYREKE ISOMERS

1100

200

eoo

580

420

100

176

KESITY1ENE

200

100

1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE

400

200

TETWCHLOROETHYLENE

200

100

TOLLCKE

22000

400

19000

24000

9800

200

170

450

lft,t-TRlCHLORQ£TKAX£

400

200

1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE

200

100

IRICHLOROeTHYLEKe

200

•

100

TRICHLORDfLUOROKETHAKE

400

200

«*f-IYLO*£

S700

200

3200

40O0

1100

100

190

220

0-IYIEKE

2100

200

1100

1700

550

100

120

100

VINYL CHLORIDE

2400

•

1200

OTHER AROMATIC CCWPOUNOS

2600

600

730

190

100

220

320

8 TYROS

5500

400

6900

6000

5000

200

1(0

B80

HDL • KETHOO DETECTION LIMITS

OTHER AROMATIC COMPOUNDS

Total concentration of trliethylbeiueses
using the response factor of leiltylene.

TABLE e-4 COKCENTRAriOM OF POLTCrCLIC AKOrtATIC HYDROCARBONS IN WATER

ug/L

OKPOUND

KU-1

KltH

K5a-1

K6a-t

hdl

K3i-l

Ub
Blanl KOI

K2-I

HDL

CEK'APKTHENE

100

0.8

- 0.05

0.05

CEKAPHTHYIENE

120

2500

o.e

260

0.05

110

0.05

NTHRACENE

290

o.e

- 0.05

0.05

ENZCAJANTHRACEVE

0.2

0,3

0.5

110

0.8

0.6

- 0.05

0,7

0.05

EHZOC8) * BEHZOfKJFLUORAHTHENE

0.1

0.8

0.2

- 0.05

0.2

0.05

ENZO(A>PYRENE

0.1

0.2

0.8

0.2

- 0.05

0.2

0.05

EKZ0(6HI)PERYLEKE

1.5

0.1

HRYSEKE

0.2

0.3

0.8

0.5

- 0.05

0.4

0.05

1BENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE

1.5

0.1

.UORANTHENE

2.1

3.7

2.3

(60

o.e

4.5

- 0.05

0.05

IUORENE

370

O.B

- 0.05

0.05

K0EH0(i,2,3-C0)PVRENE

1.5

0.1

APHTHALENE

1100

0.8

210

0.05

270

0.05

^EHANTHREKE

1000

0.8

- 0.05

0.05

YRENE

3.1

5.5

200

0.8

5.8

- 0.05

6.3

0.05

1 JL « KETHOO DETECTION LIMIT

3KP0UND

3-NAPHTHALENE
jlO-ANTHRACEKE
10-FLUORAkTHEKE
12-PERYLEHE

RECOVERY OF SURROGATE STANDARDS

Kla-1 KIb-1 K5i-1

K6a-1

K3a-I

Li!;

SUnk

tt-l

57.8

too

100

90.7

100

76.5

67.8

80.9

71.6

68.7

79.2

76.7

63.7

57.9

74.5

62.4

81.6

52.9

= Recovery not detenined due to high concentration of native naphthalene.

sKtB

'- 1111111

""''"' ■■■--■'.■ -.-■"..' -■• '-J'.

3H ■--■> ;,: '"'-•'■• ''

Ijfljiv

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Initial Study of the Former Kingston Coal Gasification Plant Site"

See other formats